Orf J, Thomas S H, Ahmed W, Wiebe L, Chamberlin P, Wedel S K, Houck C
Boston MedFlight Critical Care Transport Service, Massachusetts, USA.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000 Oct;16(5):321-7. doi: 10.1097/00006565-200010000-00004.
Guidelines for pediatric endotracheal tube (ETT) size and insertion depth are important in the helicopter EMS (HEMS) setting, where intubated patients are frequently transported by a non-physician flight crew providing protocol-based care in an environment noted for limitations in clinical airway assessment. The objectives of this study were to characterize, in a HEMS pediatric population, the frequency of compliance with guideline-recommended ETT size and insertion depth, and to test for association between guideline noncompliance and subsequent receiving hospital adjustment of ETT size or insertion depth.
This retrospective review analyzed 216 consecutive pediatric (age <14) scene and interfacility HEMS transports, of patients intubated before or during HEMS transport, by an urban two-helicopter HEMS service providing protocol-based care with a nurse/paramedic crew configuration. Patients were transported to one of three receiving academic pediatric referral centers. Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) criteria for ETT size and insertion depth were used to assess guideline-appropriateness of pediatric ETTs. Receiving hospital records were reviewed to determine if post-transport ETT size or lipline adjustment were associated with guideline-appropriateness of size and lipline during HEMS transport. Univariate (chi-square and Fisher's exact) and multivariate (logistic regression) statistics were used to assess and control for the following covariates: intubator group (physician, flight crew, ground EMS), transport year, sex, age, transport type (scene versus interfacility), and receiving hospital. For all analyses, statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.
The initial ETT size was within 0.5 mm of guideline-recommended sizes in 178 (83.6%) of the 213 patients for whom this data were available. Inappropriate sized ETTs were nearly always (32 of 35, 91.4%) too small. Compared to initial ETTs placed by ground EMS personnel, initial ETTs placed by flight crew or physicians were more likely to be appropriate as defined by guidelines (P = .008 and .032, respectively). Receiving hospitals changed the ETT size in 18 (8.3% of 216) cases. Receiving hospital ETT size change was more likely with later transport year (P = .018) and less likely in patients over 2 years of age (P = .03); there was no significant association between receiving hospital ETT size change and intubator group (P > .22) or guideline-appropriateness of ETT size (P = 0.94). The initial ETT insertion depth was within 1 cm of the guideline-recommended lipline in 86 (43.2%) of the 199 patients for whom this data were available. Inappropriate liplines were almost always (109 of 113, 96.5%) too deep. Compared to initial ETT liplines determined by ground EMS personnel, initial liplines determined by flight crew (P = .007), but not physician (P = .47) were more likely to be appropriate as defined by guidelines. Receiving hospitals changed the ETT insertion depth in 72 (33.3% of 216) cases. Receiving hospital lipline change was more likely (P = .03) in patients older than 2 years of age, but was not associated with intubator group (P = .75) or lipline guideline-appropriateness (P = .35).
As judged by frequently used guidelines, pediatric ETTs are often too small and commonly inserted too deep. However, this retrospective study, limited by lack of clinical correlation for ETT size and insertion depth, failed to find an association between lack of ETT size or lipline guideline compliance and subsequent ETT adjustment at receiving pediatric centers. This study's findings, which should be confirmed with prospective investigation, cast doubt upon the utility of pediatric ETT size/lipline guidelines as strict clinical or quality assurance tools for use in pediatric airway management.
在直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)环境中,儿科气管内插管(ETT)尺寸和插入深度的指南非常重要,因为在这种环境中,插管患者经常由非医生飞行机组人员运送,他们在临床气道评估受限的环境中提供基于协议的护理。本研究的目的是在HEMS儿科人群中,描述符合指南推荐的ETT尺寸和插入深度的频率,并测试指南不依从与后续接收医院对ETT尺寸或插入深度的调整之间的关联。
这项回顾性研究分析了216例连续的儿科(年龄<14岁)现场和机构间HEMS转运病例,这些患者在HEMS转运之前或期间进行了插管,由一个城市双直升机HEMS服务机构提供基于协议的护理,配备护士/护理人员机组配置。患者被转运到三个接收学术儿科转诊中心之一。使用儿科高级生命支持(PALS)的ETT尺寸和插入深度标准来评估儿科ETT的指南适用性。审查接收医院的记录,以确定转运后ETT尺寸或唇线调整是否与HEMS转运期间尺寸和唇线的指南适用性相关。使用单变量(卡方检验和Fisher精确检验)和多变量(逻辑回归)统计来评估和控制以下协变量:插管组(医生、飞行机组人员、地面紧急医疗服务人员)、转运年份、性别、年龄、转运类型(现场与机构间)和接收医院。对于所有分析,统计学显著性设定为0.05水平。
在可获得该数据的213例患者中,178例(83.6%)的初始ETT尺寸在指南推荐尺寸的0.5毫米范围内。尺寸不合适的ETT几乎总是(35例中的32例,91.4%)过小。与地面紧急医疗服务人员放置的初始ETT相比,飞行机组人员或医生放置的初始ETT更有可能符合指南定义的合适标准(分别为P = 0.008和0.032)。接收医院在18例(216例中的8.3%)病例中更改了ETT尺寸。接收医院更改ETT尺寸在较晚的转运年份更有可能(P = 0.018),而在2岁以上患者中则不太可能(P = 0.03);接收医院ETT尺寸更改与插管组(P > 0.22)或ETT尺寸的指南适用性(P = 0.94)之间没有显著关联。在可获得该数据的199例患者中,86例(43.2%)的初始ETT插入深度在指南推荐的唇线1厘米范围内。不合适的唇线几乎总是(113例中的109例,96.5%)过深。与地面紧急医疗服务人员确定的初始ETT唇线相比,飞行机组人员确定的初始唇线(P = 0.007),但不是医生确定(P = 0.47)的唇线更有可能符合指南定义的合适标准。接收医院在72例(216例中的33.3%)病例中更改了ETT插入深度。接收医院唇线更改在2岁以上患者中更有可能(P = 0.03),但与插管组(P = 0.75)或唇线指南适用性(P = 0.35)无关。
根据常用指南判断,儿科ETT通常过小且通常插入过深。然而,这项回顾性研究由于缺乏ETT尺寸和插入深度的临床相关性而受到限制,未能发现ETT尺寸或唇线指南不依从与儿科接收中心随后的ETT调整之间的关联。本研究的结果应通过前瞻性调查加以证实,这对儿科ETT尺寸/唇线指南作为儿科气道管理中严格的临床或质量保证工具的效用提出了质疑。