Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Prehospital Use of a Prototype Esophageal Detection Device: A Word of Caution!

  • Charles D. Marley, Jr., David R. Eitel, Mark F. Koch, Dean R. Hess, Michael A. Taigman
  • Journal:
    Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 11 / Issue 3 / September 1996
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 June 2012, pp. 223-227
    Print publication:
    September 1996
  • Objective:

    To determine the effectiveness of a prototype esophageal detection device (EDD) during use in the prehospital setting.

    Design/Setting:

    Prospective convenience sample in a prehospital setting.

    Population:

    Intubated adult patients.

    Interventions:

    The study device was used to determine esophageal or endotracheal placement of endotracheal tubes in intubated patients. Clinical means were used to confirm tube location. A data sheet was completed for each patient.

    Results:

    Of 105 uses of the device, 17 of 17 esophageal tubes were identified correctly (100% sensitivity). Sixty-five of 88 tracheal tubes were correctly identified (78% specificity). There was intermediate reinflation of the device on 13 of the 65 tracheal tubes. Five tests were indeterminate. There were no false negatives (negative predictive value 100%), but 18 false positives (positive predictive value 48%).

    Conclusion:

    This prototype EDD adequately identifies esophageally placed endotracheal tubes. Correct identification of endotracheally placed tubes was less sensitive. Much work needs to be done regarding the use of negative aspiration devices to identify placement of endotracheal tubes.