From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Emergency Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

End-Tidal CO2 Superior for Confirmation of Tracheal Tube Placement

Unrecognized esophageal intubation is a catastrophe. End-tidal CO2 determination (ETCO2) and esophageal detection devices (EDD) have been shown to be effective, but these two methods have not been directly compared. This study from Austria compared ETCO2 determination, EDD, auscultation, and transillumination using the TrachlightTM lighted stylet (TL). Investigators placed a second endotracheal tube in the esophagus of each of 38 consecutive tracheally intubated patients and then asked inexperienced senior medical students and experienced critical care physicians to assess tube placement. The tube and the method to be tested were selected in random order and the clinicians were unaware of which tube they were testing. Patients with severe respiratory insufficiency or shock were excluded.

Of the tubes tested, 74 were in the trachea and 78 were in the esophagus. The accuracy of the four methods as used by the inexperienced and experienced clinicians, respectively, was 100% and 100% for ETCO2, 98% and 97% for EDD, 66% and 100% for auscultation, and 87% and 84% for TL. All cases of esophageal intubation were detected by both ETCO2 and EDD and by both experienced and inexperienced clinicians.

Comment: Chest auscultation is operator-dependent and fallible. Failure to detect a single esophageal intubation is unacceptable. This study reinforces the importance of using ETCO2 to confirm correct tube placement and supports other studies that suggest this method is superior to all others.

— RM Walls

Published in Journal Watch Emergency Medicine June 1, 1999

Citation(s):

Knapp S et al. The assessment of four different methods to verify tracheal tube placement in the critical care setting. Anesth Analg 1999 Apr 88 766-770.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Copyright © 1999. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.