Salvatore Silvestri1, Jay G Ladde1, James F Brown2, Jesus V Roa1, Christopher Hunter1, George A Ralls1, Linda Papa1. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Regional Medical Center, 86 West Underwood Street, Suite 200, Orlando, FL 32806, United States. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Regional Medical Center, 86 West Underwood Street, Suite 200, Orlando, FL 32806, United States. Electronic address: jamfort@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Waveform capnography is considered the gold standard for verification of proper endotracheal tube placement, but current guidelines caution that it is unreliable in low-perfusion states such as cardiac arrest. Recent case reports found that long-deceased cadavers can produce capnographic waveforms. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive value of waveform capnography for endotracheal tube placement verification and detection of misplacement using a cadaveric experimental model. METHODS: We conducted a controlled experiment with two intubated cadavers. Tubes were placed within the trachea, esophagus, and hypopharynx utilizing video laryngoscopy. We recorded observations of capnographic waveforms and quantitative end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) values during tracheal versus extratracheal (i.e., esophageal and hypopharyngeal) ventilations. RESULTS: 106 and 89 tracheal ventilations delivered to cadavers one and two, respectively (n=195) all produced characteristic alveolar waveforms (positive) with ETCO2 values ranging 2-113mmHg. 42 esophageal ventilations (36 to cadaver one and 6 to cadaver two), and 6 hypopharyngeal ventilations (4 to cadaver one and 2 to cadaver two) all resulted in non-alveolar waveforms (negative) with ETCO2 values of 0mmHg. Esophageal and hypopharyngeal measurements were categorized as extratracheal (n=48). A binary classification test showed no false negatives or false positives, indicating 100% sensitivity (NPV 1.0, 95%CI 0.98-1.00) and 100% specificity (PPV 1.0, 95%CI 0.93-1.00). CONCLUSION: Though current guidelines question the reliability of waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location during low-perfusion states such as cardiac arrest, our findings suggest that it is highly sensitive and specific.
BACKGROUND: Waveform capnography is considered the gold standard for verification of proper endotracheal tube placement, but current guidelines caution that it is unreliable in low-perfusion states such as cardiac arrest. Recent case reports found that long-deceased cadavers can produce capnographic waveforms. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive value of waveform capnography for endotracheal tube placement verification and detection of misplacement using a cadaveric experimental model. METHODS: We conducted a controlled experiment with two intubated cadavers. Tubes were placed within the trachea, esophagus, and hypopharynx utilizing video laryngoscopy. We recorded observations of capnographic waveforms and quantitative end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) values during tracheal versus extratracheal (i.e., esophageal and hypopharyngeal) ventilations. RESULTS: 106 and 89 tracheal ventilations delivered to cadavers one and two, respectively (n=195) all produced characteristic alveolar waveforms (positive) with ETCO2 values ranging 2-113mmHg. 42 esophageal ventilations (36 to cadaver one and 6 to cadaver two), and 6 hypopharyngeal ventilations (4 to cadaver one and 2 to cadaver two) all resulted in non-alveolar waveforms (negative) with ETCO2 values of 0mmHg. Esophageal and hypopharyngeal measurements were categorized as extratracheal (n=48). A binary classification test showed no false negatives or false positives, indicating 100% sensitivity (NPV 1.0, 95%CI 0.98-1.00) and 100% specificity (PPV 1.0, 95%CI 0.93-1.00). CONCLUSION: Though current guidelines question the reliability of waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location during low-perfusion states such as cardiac arrest, our findings suggest that it is highly sensitive and specific.
Authors: Manuel F Struck; Johannes K M Fakler; Michael Bernhard; Thilo Busch; Patrick Stumpp; Gunther Hempel; André Beilicke; Sebastian N Stehr; Christoph Josten; Hermann Wrigge Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: I Ahmad; K El-Boghdadly; R Bhagrath; I Hodzovic; A F McNarry; F Mir; E P O'Sullivan; A Patel; M Stacey; D Vaughan Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: Iscander Maissan; Esther van Lieshout; Timo de Jong; Mark van Vledder; Robert Jan Houmes; Dennis den Hartog; Robert Jan Stolker Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 2.374