Which of the following would be the most useful in assessing proper tube placement following endotracheal intubation?

Abstract

Purpose

Early confirmation of endotracheal tube placement is of paramount importance to prevent hypoxia and its catastrophic consequences. Despite certain limitations, capnography is considered the gold standard to evaluate the proper placement of an endotracheal tube. Ultrasound is a novel tool with some definitive advantages over capnography. It enables a real-time view and can be performed quickly; furthermore, it is independent of pulmonary blood flow and does not require lung ventilation. In this review, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transtracheal ultrasound in detecting endotracheal intubation.

Source

We completed an extensive search of MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, The Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, LILACS, OpenGrey, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from their inception to September 4, 2014. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were pooled and a meta-analysis was conducted.

Principal findings

Eleven studies and 969 intubations were included in the final analysis. Eight studies and 713 intubations were performed in emergency situations and the others were carried out in elective situations. Transtracheal ultrasonography’s pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.99), respectively. In emergency scenarios, transtracheal ultrasonography showed an aggregate sensitivity and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.98), respectively.

Conclusion

Transtracheal ultrasound is a useful tool to confirm endotracheal intubation with an acceptable degree of sensitivity and specificity. It can be used in emergency situations as a preliminary test before final confirmation by capnography.

Résumé

Objectif

La confirmation rapide du positionnement du tube endotrachéal est d’une importance capitale pour prévenir l’hypoxie et ses conséquences catastrophiques. En dépit de certaines limites, on considère que la capnographie constitue la référence universelle permettant d’évaluer un bon positionnement du tube endotrachéal. L’échographie est un nouvel outil qui offre des avantages certains par rapport à la capnographie. Elle permet une vue en temps réel et peut être réalisée rapidement; en outre, elle est indépendante du débit sanguin pulmonaire et ne nécessite pas de ventilation pulmonaire. Au cours de cette étude, nous avons cherché à évaluer la précision diagnostique de l’échographie transtrachéale pour la détection de l’intubation endotrachéale.

Source

Nous avons mené une recherche extensive dans les bases de données MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, The Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, LILACS, OpenGrey, ainsi que dans le Registre des essais cliniques internationaux de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé depuis leur création jusqu’au 4 septembre 2014. Les études répondent aux critères d’inclusion ont été regroupées pour permettre la réalisation d’une méta-analyse.

Constatations principales

Onze études et 969 intubations ont été incluses dans l’analyse finale. Huit études et 713 intubations ont été pratiquées dans des situations d’urgence et les autres ont été réalisées dans des situations programmées. Après regroupement, la sensibilité et la spécificité de l’échographie transtrachéale, avec intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 %, ont été respectivement de 0,98 (IC à 95 %: 0,97 à 0,99) et 0,98 (IC à 95 %: 0,95 à 0,99). Dans les situations d’urgence, la sensibilité et la spécificité groupées de l’échographie transtrachéale ont été, respectivement, de 0,98 (IC à 95 %: 0,97 à 0,99) et 0,94 (IC à 95 %: 0,86 à 0,98).

Conclusion

L’échographie transtrachéale est un outil utile pour confirmer l’intubation endotrachéale avec des niveaux de sensibilité et de spécificité acceptables. Elle peut être utilisée dans les situations d’urgence comme test préliminaire avant une confirmation définitive par la capnographie.

Introduction

Confirmation of the proper placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) is a crucial step in airway management since unrecognized esophageal intubation leads to catastrophic consequences. Numerous methods are used to verify ETT placement, including visual confirmation of the ETT passing through the vocal cords during laryngoscopy, expansion of the chest wall during ventilation, visualization of the tracheal rings and carina using a flexible bronchoscope, auscultation, capnometry, capnography, and chest x-ray. These techniques vary in their degree of accuracy.1,2 The 2010 - Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines recommend the use of quantitative waveform capnography to confirm ETT placement and to check the effectiveness of chest compression.3,4 Although, capnography is considered the gold standard to confirm tracheal intubation, it has some major limitations. First, detection of carbon dioxide by capnography depends on adequate pulmonary blood flow; thus, its accuracy may be compromised in patients with massive pulmonary embolism and those suffering from cardiac arrest (especially where cardiopulmonary resuscitation has not yet started or the patient is in a state of cardiac arrest for a prolonged period).5 Second, respiration must be maintained for several breaths to accurately confirm the ETT placement. A trauma victim is usually considered to have a full stomach unless it is proven otherwise, and inadvertently ventilating the stomach of such a patient with a misplaced ETT can cause gastric distension, vomiting, and aspiration.6-8 Third, capnography may provide false negative results in cases of airway obstruction or due to the use of epinephrine.9,10 Thus, in the face of various limitations of the techniques currently used to verify ETT placement, there is need for a consistently reliable and safe technique that can be used in real time without ventilating the lungs.

Ultrasound, once the domain of the radiologist, has now found its place in pre-hospital applications (e.g., emergency responders), emergency wards, intensive care units, and operation theatres. Portable ultrasound is easy to carry, non-invasive, relatively economical, easily reproducible, and widely available, and it has a good safety record.11 Various studies have shown that ultrasound is a novel tool to confirm proper ETT placement.12-19 Confirmation with ultrasound is a potential alternative when detection of CO2 by capnography is compromised, where capnography is not available, or as an adjunct to capnography.

In recent years, an increasing number of original research publications have evaluated the accuracy of ultrasound for confirming ETT intubation and have reported high sensitivity and specificity using this technique.6,7,12-19 Two previous attempts were made to address this important clinical issue, one in 2011 in the form of a systematic review and one in 2012 in the form of a systematic review with a meta-analysis.20,21 Both reviews were presented during conferences, but the full texts were not published in any scientific journal. While one study did not report aggregate sensitivity or specificity, the other included only 323 intubations. After 2012, several high-quality studies were conducted, which encouraged us to undertake this systematic review and meta-analysis to test the accuracy of transtracheal ultrasound in detecting ETT intubation. Unlike the previous reviews, which included both transthoracic and transtracheal ultrasound, the focus of our novel review is on transtracheal ultrasound alone.

Data search

On September 4, 2014, we performed a search of the published research evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. We searched for published literature in the English language in MEDLINE® via PubMed, EMBASE™ via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Trip database. For literature published in other languages, we searched KoreaMed and LILACS, and we searched OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/) and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry (who.int/ictrp) for unpublished literature and ongoing studies. Details of our search strategy are shown in the Appendix (available as Electronic Supplementary Material). New links displayed alongside the abstracts were followed and retrieved, and the bibliographies in the retrieved articles were searched independently and checked for additional studies. The authors of the articles were contacted where there was any confusion regarding the reported data.

Selection of the studies

Studies using transtracheal ultrasound to verify the ETT position following an emergency or elective intubation were included in this meta-analysis. The ultrasound examination was done by placing a linear or curvilinear probe on the cricothyroid membrane or just above the suprasternal notch. Probe placement was either transverse or horizontal. The ultrasound examination was performed simultaneously with intubation or just afterward. A transverse view at the level of the cricothyroid membrane identified the ETT placement during the process of intubation by the characteristic “snowstorm sign”, “bullet sign”, or a flutter behind the thyroid cartilage.22,23 Upon completion of intubation, ETT intubation was identified by one air-mucosa (A-M) interface with posterior shadowing (comet-tail appearance). Two air-mucosa interfaces with posterior shadowing (double-track) indicated esophageal intubation13,14 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Shows one air-mucosa interface with comet-tail artifact for tracheal intubation and two air-mucosa interfaces with comet-tail artifact or double-track sign for esophageal intubation. Republished with permission from American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) from Use of sonography for rapid identification of esophageal and tracheal intubation in adult patients. Bunyamin Muslu, Hüseyin Sert, Ahmet Kaya, Rüveyda Irem Demircioglu, Muhammet Gözdemir, Brrhanettin Usta, Kadriye Serife Boynuklam, 2011;7 permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Full size image

Study selection was based on the following criteria:

• Studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of transtracheal ultrasound in confirming ETT intubation.

• Studies that verified the result of the index test (ultrasonography) with that of a gold standard (capnography).

• Studies that evaluated the accuracy of ultrasound in living adult humans (i.e., studies on cadavers and neonates were excluded).

Two authors (S.D. and S.C.) and one subject expert (D.P., not an author) independently reviewed the articles, performed a quality assessment, and ascertained the criteria for inclusion in the pooled data analysis. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus. Articles by the same author(s) were carefully investigated to avoid duplication of studies.

The quality of the study reports was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool (www.quadas.org) (supplement), and the results of the assessment are presented in tabular form.24 QUADAS-2 is recommended for use in Cochrane diagnostic test reviews.25 This tool consists of four key domains that address patient selection, index test (including timing), reference standard (including, flow and timing), and flow of patients through the study. The tool should be used in four phases: 1. summarizing the review question, 2. developing review-specific guidance, 3. reviewing the published flow diagram of the primary study or construct a flow diagram if none is reported, and 4. assessing risk of bias and concern regarding applicability.24

Data synthesis

We arranged the data in 2 × 2 tables expressing true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative. In the primary studies where data were not expressed in contingency tables, we reconstructed 2 × 2 tables from the number of ETT and esophageal intubations.

Data analysis

We constructed the forest plots with freeware Meta-DiSc, version 1.4 software (//www.hrc.es/investigacion/metadisc-en.htm; Ramon y Cajal Hospital; Madrid, Spain).26 Pooled sensitivity and specificity and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained. To test for heterogeneity among various studies, eyeball tests and the (Cochran Q) were performed. A P value of < 0.10 indicated significant heterogeneity. Meta-DiSc computes the inconsistency index (I2), which has been proposed as a measure to quantify the amount of heterogeneity. Inconsistency (I2) describes the percentage of total variation across studies that are due to heterogeneity rather than due to chance. The I2 can be readily calculated from basic results obtained from a typical meta-analysis as I2 = 100%(Q − df)/Q, where Q is Cochran’s heterogeneity and df is the degree of freedom. Cochran’s Q is computed by summing the squared deviations of each study’s estimate from the overall meta-analytic estimate. Sensitivity analysis was performed to ascertain the robustness of the result of the review after excluding the studies where intubations were done electively in a controlled environment and studies that had more than one area of high or unclear risk of bias. Another sensitivity analysis was done after excluding studies that did not use one A-M interface with comet-tail or reverberation artifact or similar features for tracheal intubation and those that did not use two A-M interfaces with comet-tail or reverberation artifact or similar features for esophageal intubation.

The method of analysis was decided prospectively before commencement of the data search.

Results

The review process and selection of included studies are presented in Fig. 2. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for the present analysis. Three studies examined the accuracy of ultrasound in elective intubations, whereas the others assessed the accuracy of ultrasound in emergency intubations. In most of the studies, the intubations and ultrasound examinations were performed by the emergency physicians. One study was excluded from the final analysis as it was difficult to compute zero in the contingency table using the meta-analysis software.26 Finally, eleven studies and 969 intubations were analyzed. The following characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1: year of publication, country of origin, setting of the study, sample size, sonographic features to distinguish ETT or esophageal intubation, type of probe and its position, ultrasound operator, time taken to complete the ultrasound assessment, and the accuracy of the ultrasound.

Fig. 2

Represents the review process and included studies

Full size image

Table 1 Characteristics of the studies which met the inclusion criteria

Full size table

The quality of the included studies as assessed by QUADAS-2 is presented in Table 2. The majority of the studies had low risk of bias regarding patient selection, index test, reference test, flow & timing, and the applicability of the index and reference tests.

Table 2 Quality assessment of the included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool

Full size table

The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of proper ETT placement with ultrasound were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.99), respectively (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography to detect placement of the endotracheal tube

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis was done after excluding three studies with elective intubations. The aggregate sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in emergency intubations were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.98), respectively (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography to detect placement of the endotracheal tube when study patients required emergency intubation

Full size image

The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the studies using one A-M interface with comet-tail artifact and two A-M interfaces with comet-tail artifact or similar features were 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99), respectively (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity of the studies that used one air-mucosa interface with comet-tail or reverberation artifact and two air-mucosa interfaces with comet-tail or reverberation artifact or similar features

Full size image

Pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies with a low risk of bias were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00), respectively (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity of studies with low risk of bias. (Studies with more than one area of high or uncertain risk of bias were excluded)

Full size image

The Cochran X2 and the inconsistency index (I2) in the forest plots indicated mild to moderate variation across the studies.

Discussion

The present study showed that ultrasound is a novel tool to confirm ETT intubation with an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of 98% (95% CI 97 to 99) and 98% (95% CI 95 to 99), respectively. The aggregate sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in emergency intubations were 98% (95% CI 97 to 99) and 94% (95% CI 86 to 98), respectively (Figs. 3, 4).

One meta-analysis of five studies and 323 intubations reported that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound were 91% (95% CI 74 to 97) and 97% (95% CI 89 to 99), respectively.20 This difference in accuracy compared with the present study may be attributed to fewer studies and the smaller sample size of the previous study.

Another study reported that capnography had 100% sensitivity and specificity in both cardiac arrest and non-arrest patients.1 Based on 2,192 intubations, a meta-analysis of capnography trials resulted in an aggregate sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 92 to 94) and an aggregate specificity of 97% (95% CI 93 to 99) for confirmation of emergency ETT placement.32 The present review showed comparable sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound, although the sample size of the present study was small (2,192 vs 969).

Transtracheal ultrasound is a relatively simple technique and easy to learn.7 A transverse view just above the suprasternal notch could be used to visualize both the trachea and esophagus, but a sagittal view is limited to a long-axis view of either the trachea or one of the paratracheal spaces.6 Moreover, the esophagus travels more laterally than the trachea as it moves inferiorly from the level of the cricoid cartilage towards the suprasternal notch.6 The typical ultrasound image of intubation (air-mucosa artifact) is due to the sound impedance shift at the interface between the water-filled mucosa and air. This standard pattern is easy to detect, although the tube itself is not identified.8

Different authors described different sonographic features to diagnose tracheal and esophageal intubation (Table 1), but close examination of the ultrasound images revealed that almost similar features were described differently. Similar sonographic features of tracheal intubation have been described as follows: one A-M interface with comet-tail or reverberation artifact and posterior shadowing, two symmetrical hyperechoic lines on transtracheal ultrasound, hyperechoic shadow or comet sign, and shadowing posterior to the tracheal rings. On the other hand, there were similar ultrasound features indicating esophageal intubation: two A-M interfaces with comet-tail or reverberation artifact and posterior shadowing, empty trachea and probe movement demonstrating dilated esophagus, two hyperechoic lines inside the esophagus, opening of the esophagus by the ETT, and shadowing posterior to the tracheal ring and in the left paratracheal space. To date, studies are lacking that directly compare the accuracy of different sonographic features. Sensitivity analysis of the studies using one A-M interface with comet-tail or reverberation artifact and two A-M interfaces with comet-tail or reverberation artifact or similar features showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of these signs were 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00) and 0.97(95% CI 0.94 to 0.99), respectively (Fig.5).

Several studies of transtracheal or transthoracic ultrasound were performed on cadaver or human subjects, and the diagnostic accuracy of the techniques was reported. These studies reported that transtracheal ultrasound had a sensitivity of 95.7-100% and a specificity of 96.3-100%.12,33-37 Transthoracic ultrasound uses either a lung sliding sign or diaphragmatic motion during ventilation to verify the position of the ETT.15-19,38 Reported sensitivities and specificities of these methods were 87-100% and 92-100%, respectively.15-19,38 We limited our review to the studies pertinent to transtracheal ultrasound. The definite advantage of transtracheal over transthoracic ultrasound is that the former does not need ventilation for confirmation; however, the transtracheal method cannot differentiate between tracheal and bronchial intubation.

The time required to confirm ETT intubation is an important consideration for any method used. Transtracheal ultrasound can be used for verification while the intubation is being performed or upon completion, whereas with capnography, the patient’s lungs have to be ventilated a minimum of four to five times for confirmation.13,14 For this reason, transtracheal ultrasound can diagnose ETT intubation faster than capnography. Various studies have reported that the time required to perform transtracheal ultrasound ranged from 5-45 sec.14,29,30 Two studies compared timeliness of ultrasound with that of capnography and found that the median verification time with ultrasound was significantly shorter than with capnography.39,40

The technique of transtracheal ultrasound to verify ETT placement has potential limitations and pitfalls. The dynamic real-time confirmation approach is potentially challenging because the ultrasound probe is placed at the level of the cricothyroid membrane, and the hand holding the probe lies in the path of the laryngoscope handle during intubation. Moreover, dynamic confirmatory signs, e.g., a brief flutter deep to the thyroid cartilage, can be detected only during real-time monitoring and not after intubation.

The ultrasound device cannot be used instantaneously as it requires start up, warm up, and adjustment of the depth and gain settings. Most in-hospital cardiac arrests occur on the ward in the early hours of the morning;41 thus, it is more complex and time consuming than simply applying the probe onto the patient’s skin, particularly in emergency scenarios. A portable ultrasound device is usually equipped with a black and white LCD display. Under daylight, in a pre-hospital setting, the reflection of the sunlight on the LCD screen may make it difficult to view ultrasound images. Moreover, surgical emphysema, difficult neck anatomy, and calcification may obscure the ultrasound image.8,42 Another drawback is the need for a second person to perform the ultrasound examination, which is not always feasible in emergency conditions.

Unlike capnography, the accuracy of the ultrasound examination is operator dependent, so training and experience of the operator may influence the sensitivity and specificity of the ultrasound examination. In the present review, ultrasound was performed by emergency medicine residents, physicians, or anesthesiologists after briefings for a couple of hours in a workshop, during a didactic lesson, or by a radiologist.6,7,13,14,22,23,29,30,39 One recent study found that experienced ultrasound operators (experience performing more than 150 scans) performed transtracheal ultrasound more accurately than their less experienced counterparts.43 Another study evaluated whether a resident with limited training in bedside ultrasound could accurately predict ETT placement. Two medical residents were trained in transtracheal ultrasound for five hours and verified ETT placement with sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 66%, respectively. Therefore, it is imperative to gain adequate experience in transtracheal ultrasound to verify ETT placement with a greater degree of accuracy.44

Another issue is availability of an ultrasound machine to confirm ETT placement. Availability varies significantly by location and by the characteristics of the individual emergency department. A smaller rural emergency department has significantly less access to bedside ultrasound.45

In our study, use of ultrasound failed to diagnose four esophageal intubations and 12 ETT intubations. This deserves close examination and explanation. Since the trachea is a superficial structure, visualization with a low-frequency probe would be difficult.13,14 Another explanation for misdiagnosis might be the position of the esophagus immediately behind the trachea, which might make it difficult for the sonographer to appreciate the double-track sign. This problem can be overcome by positioning the probe just above the suprasternal notch or exerting cricoid pressure.6,46 False negative results may be due to some anatomical artifacts like calcification within the thyroid gland mimicking the double-track sign.14

The primary method for ETT verification is visualization of the ETT passing through the vocal cords, which is accomplished by direct laryngoscopy or with a video laryngoscope. In view of various technical limitations, confirmation with direct laryngoscopy remains the standard and ultrasound is secondary even in the absence of pulmonary flow during cardiac arrest.

This review has some methodological limitations. The total sample size of emergency intubations was small, i.e., eight studies consisting of 713 emergency intubations. The number of esophageal intubations was less than the number of ETT intubations due to a lower incidence rate.

We understand from this review that transtracheal ultrasound is a novel technique with an acceptable degree of accuracy to confirm tracheal placement of the ETT in reasonably less time and without ventilation. This method can be used along with capnography as a preliminary test before final confirmation by capnography. Both transtracheal ultrasound and capnography cannot differentiate between tracheal and bronchial intubation; therefore, transthoracic or diaphragmatic ultrasound should also be performed to avoid endobronchial placement of the ETT.15,19

References

1. Grmec S. Comparison of three different methods to confirm tracheal tube placement in emergency intubation. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28: 701-4.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

2. Salem MR. Verification of endotracheal tube position. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2001; 19: 813-39.

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3. Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al. 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Part 8: Adult advanced cardiovascular life support. Circulation 2010; 122: S729-67.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4. Kodali BS. Capnography outside the operating rooms. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 192-201.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

5. Cook TM, Nolan JP. Use of capnography to confirm correct tracheal intubation during cardiac arrest. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1183-4.

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

6. Werner SL, Smith CE, Goldstein JR, Jones RA, Cydulka RK. Pilot study to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasounography in confirming endotracheal tube placement. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 49: 75-80.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7. Muslu B, Sert H, Kaya A, et al. Use of sonography for rapid identification of esophageal and tracheal intubation in adult patients. J Ultrasound Med 2011; 30: 671-6.

   PubMed  Google Scholar 

8. Zechner PM, Breitkreutz R. Ultrasound instead of capnometry for confirming tracheal tube placement in an emergency? Resuscitation 2011; 82: 1259-61.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9. Takeda T, Tanigawa K, Tanaka H, Hayashi Y, Goto E, Tanaka K. The assessment of three methods to verify tracheal tube placement in the emergency setting. Resuscitation 2003; 56: 153-7.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10. Levine RI, Wayne MA, Miller CC. End-tidal carbon dioxide and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 301-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11. Sustic A. Role of ultrasound in the airway management of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2007; 35(5 Suppl): S173-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

12. Galicinao J, Bush AJ, Godambe SA. Use of bedside ultrasonography for endotracheal tube placement in pediatric patients: a feasibility study. Pediatrics 2007; 120: 1297-303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13. Chou HC, Chong KM, Sim SS, et al. Real-time tracheal ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2013; 84: 1708-12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14. Chou HC, Tseng WP, Wang CH, et al. Tracheal rapid ultrasound exam (T.R.U.E) for confirming endotracheal tube placement during emergency intubation. Resuscitation 2011; 82: 1279-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15. Hsieh KS, Lee CL, Lin CC, Huang TC, Weng KP, Lu WH. Secondary confirmation of endotracheal tube position by ultrasound image. Crit Care Med 2004; 32(9 Suppl): S374-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16. Hosseini JS, Talebian MT, Ghafari MH, Eslami V. Secondary confirmation of endotracheal tube position by diaphragm motion in right subcostal ultrasound view. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2013; 3: 113-7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Lyon M, Walton P, Bhalla V, Shiver SA. Ultrasound detection of sliding lung sign by prehospital critical care providers. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30: 485-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18. Weaver B, Lyon M, Blaivas M. Confirmation of endotracheal tube placement after intubation using the ultrasound sliding lung sign. Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13: 239-44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19. Sim SS, Lien WC, Chou HC, et al. Ultrasonographic lung sliding sign in confirming proper endotracheal intubation during emergency intubation. Resuscitation 2012; 83: 307-12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20. Adhikari S, Farrell I, Stolz U. 46 How accurate is ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement? A meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 60: S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Herman D, Rudd B. APoo3 Where is the endotracheal tube? A literature review of rapid ultrasound confirmation. Resuscitation 2011; 82(Suppl 1): S10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

22. Abbasi S, Farsi D, Zare MA, Hajimohammadi M, Rezai M, Hafezimoghadam P. Direct ultrasound methods: a confirmatory technique for proper endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2014; DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000108.

23. Milling TJ, Jones M, Khan T, et al. Transtracheal 2-d ultrasound for identification of esophageal intubation. J Emerg Med 2007; 32: 409-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529-36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25. Deeks JJ, Wisniewski S, Davenport C. Chapter 4: Guide to the contents of a Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonic C (Eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane collaboration, 2013. Available from URL: //srdta.cochrane.org/ (accessed November 2014).

26. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

27. Hoffmann B, Gullett JP, Hill HF, et al. Bedside ultrasound of the neck confirms endotracheal tube in emergency intubations. Ultraschall Med 2014; 35: 451-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Sun JT, Chou HC, Sim SS, et al. Ultrasonography for proper endotracheal tube placement confirmation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: two-center experience. J Med Ultrasound 2014; 22: 83-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Adi O, Chuan TW, Rishya M. A feasibility study on bedside upper airway ultrasonography compared to waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location after intubation. Crit Ultrasound J 2013; 5: 7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30. Saglam C, Unluer EE, Karagoz A. Confirmation of endotracheal tube position during resuscitation by bedside ultrasonography. Am J Emerg Med 2013; 31: 248-50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31. Noh JK, Cho YS. The comparison of airway ultrasonography and continuous waveform capnography to confirm endotracheal tube placement in cardiac arrest patients: prospective observational study. Crit Ultrasound J 2012; 4(Suppl 1): A6.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

32. Li J. Capnography alone is imperfect for endotracheal tube placement confirmation during emergency Intubation. J Emerg Med 2001; 20: 223-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33. Goksu E, Sayrac V, Oktay C, Kartal M, Akcimen M. How stylet use can effect confirmation of endotracheal tube position using ultrasound. Am J Emerg Med 2010; 28: 32-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34. Ma G, Davis DP, Schmitt J, Vilke GM, Chan TC, Hayden SR. The sensitivity and specificity of transcricothyroid ultrasonography to confirm endotracheal tube placement in a cadaver model. J Emerg Med 2007; 32: 405-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35. Uya A, Spear D, Patel K, Okada P, Sheeran P, McCreight A. Can novice sonographers accurately locate an endotracheal tube with a saline—filled cuff in a cadaver model? A pilot study. Acad Emerg Med 2012; 19: 361-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Slovis TL, Poland RL. Endotracheal tubes in neoanates: sonographic positioning. Radiology 1986; 160: 262-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

37. Park SC, Ryu JH, Yeom SR, Jeong JW, Cho SJ. Confirmation of endotracheal intubation by combined ultrasonographic methods in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas 2009; 21: 293-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38. Kerrey BT, Geis GL, Quinn AM, Hornung RW, Ruddy RM. A prospective comparison of diaphragmatic ultrasound and chest radiography to determine endotracheal tube position in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics 2009; 123: e1039-44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

39. Pfeiffer P, Rudolph SS, Borglum J, Isbye DL. Temporal comparison of ultrasound vs. auscultation and capnography in verification of endotracheal tube placement. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2011; 55: 1190-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Pfeiffer P, Bache S, Isbye DL, Rudolph SS, Rovsing L, Borglum J. Verification of endotracheal intubation in obese patients – temporal comparison of ultrasound vs. auscultation and capnography. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2012; 56: 571-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

41. Buff DD, Fleisher JM, Roca JA, Jaffri M, Wyrwinski PM. Circadian distribution of in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrests on the general medical ward. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 1282-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42. Xue FS, Liao X, Wang Q. Confirmation of endotracheal tube placement during emergency intubation. Resuscitation 2012; 83: e67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

43. Stuntz R, Kochert E, Kehrl T, Schrading W. The effect of sonologist experience on the ability to determine endotracheal tube location using trastracheal ultrasound. Am J Emerg Med 2014; 32: 267-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44. Sharma N, Cardenas-Garcia J, Tibb A. Limited training in bedside ultrasound can accurately predict endotracheal tube placement. Chest 2013; 144: 547A (abstract).

45. Talley BE, Ginde AA, Raja AS, Sullivan AF, Espinola JA, Camargo CA Jr. Variable access to immediate bedside ultrasound in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med 2011; 12: 96-9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46. Smith KJ, Dobranowski J, Yip G, Dauphin A, Choi PT. Cricoid pressure displaces the esophagus: an observational study using magnetic resonance imaging. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 60-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Debasis Pradhan for assessing the quality of the included studies.

Source of funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Nazareth Hospital, Shillong, 793003, Meghalaya, India

   Saurabh Kumar Das MD & Nang Sujali Choupoo MD

2. Department of Anaesthesia, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India

   Rudrashish Haldar MD

3. Department of Anesthesia, Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Eaglestone, Milton Keynes, UK

   Amitabh Lahkar MD

Authors

1. Saurabh Kumar Das MD

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Nang Sujali Choupoo MD

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

3. Rudrashish Haldar MD

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

4. Amitabh Lahkar MD

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saurabh Kumar Das MD.

Additional information

Author contributions

Saurabh Kumar Das and Nang Sujali Choupoo are responsible for the integrity of this work from inception to manuscript preparation. They contributed to the study design, study selection, quality assessment, records review, data synthesis, data analysis, and manuscript composition. Rudrashish Haldar and Amitabh Lahkar contributed to the review process by searching the literature and reviewing the search records and manuscripts. All authors read the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Das, S.K., Choupoo, N.S., Haldar, R. et al. Transtracheal ultrasound for verification of endotracheal tube placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 62, 413–423 (2015). //doi.org/10.1007/s12630-014-0301-z

Download citation

• Received: 15 May 2014

• Accepted: 09 December 2014

• Published: 24 December 2014

• Issue Date: April 2015

• DOI: //doi.org/10.1007/s12630-014-0301-z

Keywords

• Pool Sensitivity
• Tracheal Ring
• Sonographic Feature
• Suprasternal Notch
• Esophageal Intubation

What is the best way to verify proper placement of an endotracheal tube?

What is considered the most reliable way of securing endotracheal tube placement?

What is the assessment of endotracheal intubation?