Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Department of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perio-perative Medicine, Dalhousie University, QEII Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Anaesthesia. 2023 Aug;78(8):1020-1030. doi: 10.1111/anae.16059. Epub 2023 Jun 16.
Unrecognised oesophageal intubation causes preventable serious harm to patients undergoing tracheal intubation. When capnography is unavailable or doubted, clinicians still use clinical findings to confirm tracheal intubation, or exclude oesophageal intubation, and false reassurance from clinical examination is a recurring theme in fatal cases of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of five clinical examination tests and the oesophageal detector device when used to confirm tracheal intubation. We searched four databases for studies reporting index clinical tests against a reference standard, from inception to 28 February 2023. We included 49 studies involving 10,654 participants. Methodological quality was overall moderate to high. We looked at misting (three studies, 115 participants); lung auscultation (three studies, 217 participants); combined lung and epigastric auscultation (four studies, 506 participants); the oesophageal detector device (25 studies, 3024 participants); 'hang-up' (two non-human studies); and chest rise (one non-human study). The reference standards used were capnography (22 studies); direct vision (10 studies); and bronchoscopy (three studies). When used to confirm tracheal intubation, misting has a false positive rate (95%CI) of 0.69 (0.43-0.87); lung auscultation 0.14 (0.08-0.23); five-point auscultation 0.18 (0.08-0.36); and the oesophageal detector device 0.05 (0.02-0.09). Tests to exclude events that invariably lead to severe damage or death must have a negligible false positive rate. Misting or auscultation have too high a false positive rate to reliably exclude oesophageal intubation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of 'hang-up' or chest rise. The oesophageal detector device may be considered where other more reliable means are not available, though waveform capnography remains the reference standard for confirmation of tracheal intubation.
未识别的食管插管会对接受气管插管的患者造成可预防的严重伤害。当呼气末二氧化碳监测不可用时或存在疑问时,临床医生仍会使用临床发现来确认气管插管,或排除食管插管,而临床检查的错误保证是未识别的食管插管导致致命病例的一个反复出现的主题。我们对五项临床检查测试和食管探测器设备用于确认气管插管时的诊断准确性进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。我们从数据库中搜索了从开始到 2023 年 2 月 28 日发表的报告索引临床测试与参考标准的研究。我们纳入了 49 项涉及 10654 名参与者的研究。方法学质量总体为中等到高度。我们观察了雾气(三项研究,115 名参与者);肺部听诊(三项研究,217 名参与者);肺部和上腹部听诊(四项研究,506 名参与者);食管探测器设备(二十五项研究,3024 名参与者);“挂起”(两项非人类研究);和胸部上升(一项非人类研究)。使用的参考标准是呼气末二氧化碳监测(22 项研究);直接观察(10 项研究);和支气管镜检查(三项研究)。当用于确认气管插管时,雾气的假阳性率(95%CI)为 0.69(0.43-0.87);肺部听诊为 0.14(0.08-0.23);五点听诊为 0.18(0.08-0.36);食管探测器设备为 0.05(0.02-0.09)。用于排除必然导致严重损伤或死亡的事件的测试必须具有可忽略的假阳性率。雾气或听诊的假阳性率过高,无法可靠排除食管插管,而且没有足够的证据支持使用“挂起”或胸部上升。在无法使用其他更可靠的方法时,可以考虑使用食管探测器设备,尽管波形呼气末二氧化碳监测仍然是确认气管插管的参考标准。