Comparison of saline versus air for identifying endotracheal intubation with ultrasound

• Published in: The American journal of emergency medicine 2022-08, Vol.58, p.131-134
• Main Authors: Gottlieb, Michael, Patel, Daven, Jung, Christine, Murray, David, Hartrich, Molly, Schraft, Evelyn, Ginn, Jasmine, Peksa, Gary D., Sundaram, Tina
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Air; Cadavers; Confidence; Emergency medical care; Endotracheal; Esophagus; Intubation; Patients; Saline; Statistical analysis; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasound; Writing
• ISSN: 0735-6757; 1532-8171
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.05.053

After intubation has been performed, it is important to rapidly confirm the correct location of the endotracheal tube (ETT). Multiple techniques have been described, each with different limitations. Ultrasound has been increasingly recognized as an alternate modality for identifying the ETT location. However, it can be challenging to visualize the air-filled ETT cuff. Saline insufflation of the ETT cuff has been suggested to improve visualization of the ETT but data are limited. Our study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of air versus saline ETT cuff inflation on the diagnostic accuracy of intubation. This was a randomized trial comparing air versus saline cuff inflation using a cadaver model. Adult cadavers were intubated in a random sequence with respect to both the location of intubation (i.e., tracheal vs esophageal) and air versus saline. Blinded sonographers assessed the location of the ETT using the static technique. Outcomes included accuracy of sonographer identification, time to identification, and operator confidence. 480 total assessments were performed. When using air, ultrasound was 95.8% sensitive (95% CI 90.5% to 98.6%) and 100% specific (95% CI 97.0% to 100%) with a mean time to confirmation of 8.5 s (95% CI 7.6 s to 9.4 s) and a mean operator confidence of 4.32/5.0 (95% CI 4.21 to 4.42). When using saline, ultrasound was 100% sensitive (95% CI 97.0% to 100%) and 100% specific (95% CI 97.0% to 100%) with a mean time to confirmation of 6.3 s (95% CI 5.9 s to 6.8 s) and a mean operator confidence of 4.52/5.0 (95% CI 4.44 to 4.60). There was no statistically significant difference between air versus saline for intubation confirmation. However, saline was associated with fewer false negatives. Additionally, time to confirmation was faster and operator confidence was higher with the saline group. Further studies should determine if the outcomes would change with more novice sonographers or in specific patient populations.