Published online May 4, 2009
PEDIATRICS Vol. 123 No. 6 June 2009, pp. e1039-e1044 (doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2828)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerrey, B. T.
Right arrow Articles by Ruddy, R. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kerrey, B. T.
Right arrow Articles by Ruddy, R. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Emergency Medicine
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

A Prospective Comparison of Diaphragmatic Ultrasound and Chest Radiography to Determine Endotracheal Tube Position in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Benjamin Thomas Kerrey, MDa,b, Gary Lee Geis, MDa,b, Andrea Megan Quinn, BSa, Richard William Hornung, PhDc and Richard Michael Ruddy, MDa,b

a Divisions of Emergency Medicine
c General and Community Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
b College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

BACKGROUND. Investigators report endotracheal tube misplacement in up to 40% of emergent intubations. The standard elements of confirmation have significant limitations. Diaphragmatic ultrasound is a potentially viable addition to the confirmatory process. Our primary hypothesis is that ultrasound is equivalent to chest radiography in determining endotracheal tube position within the airway in emergent pediatric intubations.

METHODS. We enrolled a prospective, convenience sample from all intubated patients in our emergency department. The primary outcome was the agreement between diaphragmatic ultrasound and chest radiography for endotracheal tube position. On ultrasound, tracheal placement equaled bilateral diaphragmatic motion, bronchial placement equaled unilateral diaphragmatic motion, and esophageal placement equaled no or paradoxical diaphragmatic motion during delivery of positive pressure. Study sonographers were blind to radiographic results. Our secondary outcome was the timeliness of ultrasound versus chest radiography results. Our institutional review board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent.

RESULTS. One hundred twenty-seven patients were enrolled. In 24 (19%) patients, the endotracheal tube was in the mainstem bronchus on chest radiography. There were no esophageal intubations in the sample. Ultrasound and chest radiography agreed on endotracheal tube placement in 106 patients (94 tracheal and 12 mainstem), for an overall agreement of 0.83. The sensitivity of ultrasound for tracheal placement was 0.91. The specificity of ultrasound for mainstem intubation was 0.50. Thirty-four patients had a second ultrasound by a separate, blinded sonographer; 33 of 34 of the results of the second sonographer were in agreement with the initial sonogram, for an interrater agreement of 97%. Clinically useful chest radiography results took a median of 8 minutes longer to achieve than ultrasound results.

CONCLUSIONS. Diaphragmatic ultrasound was not equivalent to chest radiography for endotracheal tube placement within the airway. However, ultrasound results were timelier, detected more misplacements than standard confirmation alone, and were highly reproducible between sonographers.

Key Words: intubation • ultrasound • pediatric • radiograph • emergency

Abbreviations: ETT—endotracheal tube • CXR—chest radiograph • ED—emergency department • ETCO2—end-tidal carbon dioxide • CI—confidence interval

Accepted Feb 4, 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JWatch Emergency Med.Home page
Diaphragmatic Ultrasound Is Not Accurate for Identifying Mainstem Intubation
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, July 10, 2009; 2009(710): 2 - 2.
[Full Text]