Clinical tests for confirming tracheal intubation or excluding oesophageal intubation: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

Hansel J.1ORCID,Law J. A.2,Chrimes N.3,Higgs A.4,Cook T. M.56ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine University of Manchester Manchester UK

2. Department of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perio‐perative Medicine Dalhousie University, QEII Health Sciences Centre Halifax Nova Scotia Canada

3. Department of Anaesthesia Monash Medical Centre Melbourne VIC Australia

4. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Warrington Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cheshire UK

5. Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Bath UK

6. School of Medicine University of Bristol Bristol UK

Abstract

SummaryUnrecognised oesophageal intubation causes preventable serious harm to patients undergoing tracheal intubation. When capnography is unavailable or doubted, clinicians still use clinical findings to confirm tracheal intubation, or exclude oesophageal intubation, and false reassurance from clinical examination is a recurring theme in fatal cases of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of five clinical examination tests and the oesophageal detector device when used to confirm tracheal intubation. We searched four databases for studies reporting index clinical tests against a reference standard, from inception to 28 February 2023. We included 49 studies involving 10,654 participants. Methodological quality was overall moderate to high. We looked at misting (three studies, 115 participants); lung auscultation (three studies, 217 participants); combined lung and epigastric auscultation (four studies, 506 participants); the oesophageal detector device (25 studies, 3024 participants); ‘hang‐up’ (two non‐human studies); and chest rise (one non‐human study). The reference standards used were capnography (22 studies); direct vision (10 studies); and bronchoscopy (three studies). When used to confirm tracheal intubation, misting has a false positive rate (95%CI) of 0.69 (0.43–0.87); lung auscultation 0.14 (0.08–0.23); five‐point auscultation 0.18 (0.08–0.36); and the oesophageal detector device 0.05 (0.02–0.09). Tests to exclude events that invariably lead to severe damage or death must have a negligible false positive rate. Misting or auscultation have too high a false positive rate to reliably exclude oesophageal intubation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of ‘hang‐up’ or chest rise. The oesophageal detector device may be considered where other more reliable means are not available, though waveform capnography remains the reference standard for confirmation of tracheal intubation.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Reference71 articles.

1. Preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation: a consensus guideline from the Project for Universal Management of Airways and international airway societies*

2. PUMA guideline for preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation

3. The Assessment of Four Different Methods to Verify Tracheal Tube Placement in the Critical Care Setting

4. Coroners Court of Victoria.Finding into death without inquest of Mr XH. Case ID: COR 2019 001998 2021.https://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/COR%202019%20001998%20XH%20Finding%20Amended.pdf(accessed 27/03/2023).

5. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.Prevention of Future Death Reports. Mr Peter Saint. Ref: 2017‐0404 2017.https://www.judiciary.uk/prevention‐of‐future‐death‐reports/peter‐saint/(accessed 27/03/2023).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3