To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Rapid identification of esophageal intubations is critical to avoid patient morbidity and mortality. Continuous waveform capnography remains the gold standard for endotracheal tube (ETT) confirmation, but it has limitations. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may be a useful alternative for confirming ETT placement. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of paramedic-performed POCUS identification of esophageal intubations with and without ETT manipulation.
A prospective, observational study using a cadaver model was conducted. Local paramedics were recruited as subjects and each completed a survey of their demographics, employment history, intubation experience, and prior POCUS training. Subjects participated in a didactic session in which they learned POCUS identification of ETT location. During each study session, investigators randomly placed an ETT in either the trachea or esophagus of four cadavers, confirmed with direct laryngoscopy. Subjects then attempted to determine position using POCUS both without and with manipulation of the ETT. Manipulation of the tube was performed by twisting the tube. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to assess the results and the effects of previous paramedic experience.
During 12 study sessions, from March 2014 through December 2015, 57 subjects participated, evaluating a total of 228 intubations: 113 tracheal and 115 esophageal. Subjects were 84.0% male, mean age of 39 years (range: 22 - 62 years), with median experience of seven years (range: 0.6 - 39 years). Paramedics correctly identified ETT location in 158 (69.3%) cases without and 194 (85.1%) with ETT manipulation. The sensitivity and specificity of identifying esophageal location without ETT manipulation increased from 52.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.0-61.0) and 86.7% (95% CI, 81.0-93.0) to 87.0% (95% CI, 81.0-93.0) and 83.2% (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) after manipulation (P<.0001), without affecting specificity (P=.45). Subjects correctly identified 41 previously incorrectly identified esophageal intubations. Paramedic experience, previous intubations, and POCUS experience did not correlate with ability to identify tube location.
Paramedics can accurately identify esophageal intubations with POCUS, and manipulation improves identification. Further studies of paramedic use of dynamic POCUS to identify inadvertent esophageal intubations are needed.
LemaPC, O’BrienM, WilsonJ, St. JamesE, LindstromH, DeAngelisJ, CaldwellJ, MayP, ClemencyB.Avoid the Goose! Paramedic Identification of Esophageal Intubation by Ultrasound. Prehosp Disaster Med.2018;33(4):406–410
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.