| Literature DB >> 30139232 |
Filiz Uzumcugil1, Emre Can Celebioglu2, Demet Basak Ozkaragoz1, Aysun Ankay Yilbas1, Basak Akca1, Nazgol Lotfinagsh1, Bilge Celebioglu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The age-based Cole formula has been employed for the estimation of endotracheal tube (ETT) size due to its ease of use, but may not appropriately consider growth rates among children. Child growth is assessed by calculating the body surface area (BSA). The association between the outer diameter of an appropriate uncuffed-endotrachealtube (ETT-OD) and the BSA values of patients at 24-96 months of age was our primary outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Body Surface Area; Endotracheal Intubation; Pediatrics; Ultrasonography
Year: 2018 PMID: 30139232 PMCID: PMC6222187 DOI: 10.21053/ceo.2018.00178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 1976-8710 Impact factor: 3.372
Fig. 1.Flowchart describing patients scheduled for surgery, and assessed and analyzed for the study within a 6-month period. ETT, endotracheal tube; BSA, body surface area.
Demographical data
| Variable | Value (n=114) |
|---|---|
| Age (mo), mean±SD (range) | 50.4±19.1 (24–96) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 85 (74.6) |
| Female | 29 (25.4) |
| Weight (kg) | 16.4±3.9 |
| Height (cm) | 104.5±11.6 |
| BSA (m2) | 0.69±0.12 |
| Weight percentile for age | 0.50 (0.10–0.75) |
| Height percentile for age | 0.75 (0.25–0.90) |
Values are presented as number (%), mean±SD, or median (range) unless otherwise indicated.
SD, standard deviation; BSA, body surface area.
The distribution of correct ETT-OD in subgroups of age
| Variable | Age group (mo) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tube size OD (mm) | ≥24 to <48 | ≥48 to <72 | ≥72 | All patients |
| 6.1 | 3 (5.3) | 1 (2.9) | - | 4 (3.5) |
| 6.6 | 14 (24.6)[ | - | - | 14 (12.3) |
| 7.1 | 30 (52.6)[ | 11 (31.3)[ | 3 (8.6) | 44 (38.6) |
| 7.7 | 9 (15.8) | 15 (42.9)[ | 5 (14.3)[ | 29 (25.4) |
| 8.4 | 1 (1.7) | 8 (22.9) | 14 (40)[ | 23 (20.2) |
| >8.4[ | - | - | 13 (37.1)[ | - |
| Total | 57 (44.8) | 35 (27.6) | 35 (27.6) | 127 (100) |
Values are presented as number (%).
ETT-OD, the outer diameter of an appropriate uncuffed-endotracheal-tube.
The number of patients, who required matching ETT-OD size, highlights the most frequent ETT-OD size required in each subgroup of age.
Cuffed ETT of OD: 8.4 mm.
The results of univariate linear regression analyses for correct ETT-OD in subgroups of age
| Variable | B | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, ≥24 to <48 mo | ||||
| Weight | 0.07 | 0.02–0.13 | 2.732 | 0.008 |
| Height | 0.22 | 0.04–0.40 | 2.438 | 0.018 |
| BSA | 0.24 | 0.07–0.42 | 2.756 | 0.008 |
| Age, ≥48 to <72 mo | ||||
| Weight | 0.07 | 0.02–0.13 | 1.600 | 0.119 |
| Height | 0.48 | 0.22–0.73 | 3.782 | <0.001 |
| BSA | 0.24 | 0.03–0.46 | 2.272 | 0.030 |
| Age, ≥72 mo | ||||
| Weight | 0.07 | 0.02–0.13 | 3.214 | 0.004 |
| Height | 0.38 | 0.16–0.60 | 3.563 | 0.002 |
| BSA | 0.28 | 0.12–0.44 | 3.730 | <0.001 |
ETT-OD, the outer diameter of an appropriate uncuffed-endotracheal-tube; CI, confidence interval; BSA, body surface area.
The frequency distribution of correctly-, under-, and over-estimated tracheal tube size
| Variable | Under-estimated | Correctly-estimated | Over-estimated | Multiple comparison[ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All ages (n=127) | ||||||
| Cole formula | 59 (46.4) | 57 (44.9) | 11 (8.7) | NA | NA | NA |
| BSA | 46 (36.2) | 51 (40.2) | 30 (23.6) | <0.001 | 0.418 | <0.001 |
| Ultrasound | 49 (38.6) | 54 (42.5) | 24 (18.9) | 0.154 | 0.771 | 0.007 |
| Age ≥24 to <48 mo (n=57) | ||||||
| Cole formula | 22 (38.6) | 29 (50.9) | 6 (10.5) | NA | NA | NA |
| BSA | 14 (24.6) | 29 (50.8) | 14 (24.6) | 0.021 | >0.999 | 0.021 |
| Ultrasound | 15 (26.3) | 24 (42.1) | 18 (31.6) | 0.167 | 0.405 | 0.002 |
| Age ≥48 to <72 mo (n=35) | ||||||
| Cole formula | 15 (42.9) | 19 (54.3) | 1 (2.9) | NA | NA | NA |
| BSA | 11 (31.4) | 13 (37.2) | 11 (31.4) | 0.125 | 0.180 | 0.002 |
| Ultrasound | 11 (31.4) | 19 (54.3) | 5 (14.3) | 0.388 | >0.999 | 0.125 |
| Age ≥72 mo (n=35) | ||||||
| Cole formula | 22 (62.9) | 9 (25.7) | 4 (11.4) | NA | NA | NA |
| BSA | 21 (60.0) | 9 (25.7) | 5 (14.3) | >0.999 | >0.999 | >0.999 |
| Ultrasound | 23 (65.7) | 11 (31.4) | 1 (2.9) | >0.999 | 0.727 | 0.250 |
Values are presented as number (%).
NA, not applicable; BSA, body surface area.
Cole formula vs. BSA and Cole formula vs. ultrasound, McNemar test.
Comparisons of under-estimated rates.
Comparisons of correctly-estimated rates.
Comparisons of over-estimated rates.
Fig. 2.Bland-Altman diagram showing the magnitude of the difference between the correct ETT-ID and Cole formula (n=114; mean bias, –0.17 mm [solid line]; SD, 0.41 mm). The dashed lines represent the lower (LL) and upper limits (UL) of agreement: LL, –0.64 mm; UL, 0.98 mm. ETT, endotracheal tube; ID, inner diameter; SD, standard deviation.
Fig. 3.Bland-Altman diagram showing the magnitude of the difference between the correct ETT-OD and USG (n=114; mean bias, 0.07 mm [solid line]; SD, 0.61 mm). The dashed lines represent the lower (LL) and upper limits (UL) of agreement: LL, –1.12 mm; UL, 1.26 mm. ETT, endotracheal tube; OD, outer diameter; USG, ultrasonography; SD, standard deviation.