Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:55:07.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching Basic EMTs Endotracheal Intubation: Can Basic EMTs Discriminate between Endotracheal and Esophageal Intubation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Michael R. Sayre ,
John Sakles ,
Alan Mistler ,
Janice Evans ,
Anthony Kramer  and
Arthur M. Pancioli
Michael R. Sayre*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
John Sakles
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
Alan Mistler
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
Janice Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
Anthony Kramer
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
Arthur M. Pancioli
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0769, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypothesis:

Advanced airway intervention techniques are being considered for use by basic emergency medical technicians (EMTs). It was hypothesized that basic EMTs would be able to discriminate reliably between intratracheal and esophageal endotracheal tube, placement in a mannequin model.

Design:

An airway mannequin with a closed chest cavity was intubated randomly either esophageally or tracheally, and the cuff was inflated. A stethoscope, bag ventilator, and laryngoscope were available next to the mannequin. Placement was assessed by auscultation or direct visualization at the discretion of the EMT. A blinded investigator graded the student.

Setting:

A classroom in a large, urban medical center.

Participants:

Subjects were basic EMTs who volunteered to take part after the conclusion of a six-hour endotracheal intubation training course.

Results:

Thirty-three subjects were tested. Seventeen of 18 (94%) tracheal intubations and 11 of 15 (73%) esophageal intubations were identified correctly. Only 72% of the students listened to the epigastrium, 81% listened to the lungs, and 85% attempted ventilation. The 10 students who visualized the cords discovered all five esophageal intubations. The 23 students who did not visualize the cords missed four and found six esophageal intubations.

Conclusion:

Basic EMTs had difficulty assessing endotracheal tube placement in a mannequin model. The 27% miss rate for identifying esophageal intubations suggests that basic EMTs will require additional training for safe field use of any airway that requires assessment of tube placement.

Keywords

emergency medical servicesemergency medical techniciansintubationintratracheal
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 234 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pepe, PE, Copass, MK, Joyce, TH: Prehospital endotracheal intubation: Rationale for training emergency medical personnel. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:1085–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Emergency Medical Technician-Ambulance: National Standard Curriculum. 1984, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3. Johannigman, JA, Branson, RD, Davis, K Jr, Hurst, JM: Techniques of emergency ventilation: A model to evaluate tidal volume, airway pressure, and gastric insufflation. J Trauma 1991;31:93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Harrison, RR, Maull, KI, Keenan, RL, Boyan, CP: Mouth-to-mask ventilation: A superior method of rescue breathing. Ann Emerg Med 1982:11:74–76.Google Scholar
5. Cummins, RO, Austin, D, Graves, JR, et al. : Ventilation skills of emergency medical technicians: A teaching challenge for emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:1187–1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Elling, R, Politis, J: An evaluation of emergency medical technicians' ability to use manual ventilation devices. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:765–768.Google Scholar
7. Seidelin, PH, Stolarek, IH, Littlewood, DG: Comparisons of six methods of emergency ventilation. Lancet 1986;2:1274–1275. (Letter)Google Scholar
8. Niemann, JT, Rosborough, JP, Myers, R, Scarberry, EN: The pharyngeo-tracheal-lumen airway: Preliminary investigation of a new adjunct. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:591–596.Google Scholar
9. Frass, M, Frenzer, R, Zdrahal, F, et al. : The esophageal tracheal Combitube® (ETC): Preliminary results with a new airway for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:768–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hunt, RC, Sheets, CA, Whitely, TW: Pharyngeo-tracheal-lumen airway training: Failure to discriminate between esophageal and endotracheal modes and failure to confirm ventilation. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Bartlett, RL, Martin, SD, McMahon, JM, et al. : A field comparison of the pharyngeo-tracheal-lumen airway and the endotracheal tube. J Trauma 1992:32:280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. McMahan, S, Ornato, JP, Racht, EM, Cameron, J: Multi-agency, prehospital evaluation of the pharyngeo-tracheal-lumen (PTL) airway. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992;7:13–18.Google Scholar
13. Birmingham, PK, Cheney, FW, Ward, RJ: Esophageal intubation: A review of detection techniques. Anesth Analg 1986;65:886–891.Google Scholar
14. Andersen, KH, Hald, A: Assessing the position of the tracheal tube: The reliability of different methods. Anesthesia 1989;44:984–985.Google Scholar
15. Wee, MYK: The oesophageal detector device. Anesthesia 1988;43:27–29.Google Scholar
16. Foutch, RG, Magelssen, MD, MacMillan, JG: The esophageal detector device: A rapid and accurate method for assessing tracheal versus esophageal intubation in a porcine model. Ann Emerg Med 1992:21:1073–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Jenkins, WA, Verdile, V, Paris, PM: The syringe aspiration technique to verify endotracheal tube position. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992;7:s12. (Abstract)Google Scholar