| Literature DB >> 34658727 |
Tariq M Wani1, Jiju John1, Vladimir Bahun2, Faris AlGhamdi3, Dmitry Tumin4, Joseph D Tobias3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of cuffed endotracheal tubes (ETT) has become the standard of care in pediatric practice. The rationale for the use of a cuffed ETT is to minimize pressure around the cricoid while providing an effective airway seal. However, safe care requires that the cuff lie distal to the cricoid ring following endotracheal intubation. The current study demonstrates the capability of computed tomography (CT) imaging in identifying the position of the cuff of the ETT in intubated patients.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography imaging; cricoid ring; endotracheal intubation; endotracheal tube cuff; pediatric airway; trachea.
Year: 2021 PMID: 34658727 PMCID: PMC8477782 DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_396_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Anaesth
Figure 1Sagittal computed tomography image of a 4-year-old patient showing the location of the cuff of the endotracheal tube in relationship to the vertebral bodies
Patient Characteristics and Cuff Position in the Study Cohort
| Variable | Median | IQR | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (months) | 22 | 6, 62 | 1, 159 | |
| Age category | ||||
| <1 year | 17 (39%) | |||
| 1-2 years | 6 (13%) | |||
| >2 years | 21 (48%) | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 18 (41%) | |||
| Male | 26 (59%) | |||
| Weight (kg) | 12 | 7, 18 | 3, 62 | |
| ETT type | ||||
| Microcuff® | 22 (50%) | |||
| ETT with polyvinylchloride cuff | 22 (50%) | |||
| ETT size | 4.5 | 3.5, 5 | 3, 6.5 | |
| Vertebral levels of ETT cuff | ||||
| Proximal | C7 | C6, C7 | C4, T1 | |
| Distal | T2 | T1, T2 | C7, T3 | |
| Number of vertebral bodies spanned | 3 | 3, 3 | 2, 4 | |
| Specific levels spanned | ||||
| C4-C7 | 2 (5%) | |||
| C5-C7 | 3 (7%) | |||
| C6-T1 | 8 (18%) | |||
| C6-T2 | 1 (2%) | |||
| C7-T1 | 7 (16%) | |||
| C7-T2 | 17 (39%) | |||
| T1-T3 | 6 (14%) |
ETT, endotracheal tube; IQR, interquartile range
Cuff Position in Relationship to the Cricoid Ring by Age Group*
| Characteristic | Age<1 year | Age 1-2 years | Age>2 years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vertebral level of the lower border of the cricoid+ | Middle of C4 | Middle of C5 | Middle of C5 |
| Above lower border of the cricoid | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Below lower border of the cricoid | 17 | 5 | 19 |
| Total | 17 | 6 | 21 |
*Position of the proximal (cephalad) end of the endotracheal tube cuff in relationship to the cricoid ring. +Vertebral level used to estimate position of the cricoid.
Comparison of Cuff Position Between Microcuff® and Standard Endotracheal Tube
| Microcuff®, | Standard ETT, |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vertebral level of the cuff | Top | C7; (C6, C7); C4-T1 | C7; (C6, C7); C4-T1 | 0.938 |
| Bottom | T2; (T1, T2); C7-T3 | T2; (T1, T2); C7-T3 | 0.901 | |
| Vertebral levels spanned by the cuff | 3; (3, 3); 2-4 | 3; (3, 3); 2-4 | 0.974 |
Data are listed as median; (IQR); range. IQR, interquartile range; ETT, endotracheal tube
Figure 2Position of the cephalad edge of the cuff in relationship to the vertebral bodies in the study cohort of 44 patients. The position of the Microcuff® endotracheal tube is shown in blue while the cuff of the polyvinylchloride endotracheal tube is shown in orange