Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine logoLink to Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
. 2021 Oct 26;9(1):e68. doi: 10.22037/aaem.v9i1.1360

Screening Performance Characteristics of Ultrasonography in Confirmation of Endotracheal Intubation; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Mehrdad Farrokhi 1,*, Bardia Yarmohammadi 2, Amir Mangouri 3, Yasaman Hekmatnia 4, Yaser Bahramvand 5, Moein Kiani 6, Elham Nasrollahi 5, Milad Nazari-Sabet 7, Niusha Manoochehri-Arash 8, Maria Khurshid 9,†, Shima Mosalanejad 10, Vida Hajizadeh 11, Reza Amani-Beni 12, Masoumeh Moallem 13, Maryam Farahmandsadr 14
PMCID: PMC8628646  PMID: 34870234

Abstract

Introduction:

Recent studies have suggested that point-of-care ultrasonography can be used for confirming the placement of endotracheal tube. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirming endotracheal tube placement.

Methods:

In this meta-analysis, systematic search of the previous published papers investigating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement was performed. Seven electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database were searched up to July 2021, for all relevant articles published in English on this topic. Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results:

The estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube location were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.96), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 5.94 (95% CI 4.41–7.98) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.04), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of ultrasonography was 281.47 and the area under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) revealed an appropriate accuracy of 0.98.

Conclusion:

Ultrasonography has high diagnostic accuracy and can be used as a promising tool for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement, especially in critically ill patients or when capnography is not available, or its result is equivocal.

Key Words: Airway management, intubation, meta-analysis, sensitivity and specificity, ultrasonography

1. Introduction

Securing a definitive airway in critically ill patients is a necessary procedure performed in intensive care unit (ICU), out of hospital, and in the emergency department (ED) settings. Direct assessment of the endotracheal tube passage through the cords is commonly performed via primary localization, followed by a confirming method (1, 2). However, direct visualization of endotracheal tube passing through the cord may be misleading during difficult intubations, which may lead to esophageal intubation in emergency cases. Unrecognized esophageal intubations are associated with catastrophic consequences such as neurological complications or death. Therefore, different techniques are often used to confirm the appropriate placement of endotracheal tube, but not all of them are all of them are not reliable enough to confirm the tracheal intubation (3, 4). It has been suggested that both clinical evaluations and confirmatory methods including auscultation, chest expansion following ventilation, bronchoscopy, chest X-ray, capnography, and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) assessment should be used to confirm the location of endotracheal tube. In this regard, ETCO2 has not been suggested for patients with cardiac arrest or embolism. Similarly, capnography has some limitations, including low reliability in patients with embolism or cardiac arrest, or recent bag-valve-mask use (5-7). Due to the above-mentioned limitations, combined with growing application of ultrasound by emergency medicine (EM) physicians and ease of use of point-of-care ultrasonography, many studies have been performed to assess the reliability of ultrasonography for approving the placement of endotracheal tube. However, most of these investigations had small sample sizes with different gold standards, resulting in conflicting findings. Accumulating lines of evidence have recently suggested that point-of-care ultrasonography can be used as an adjunct for confirming the placement of endotracheal tube, especially in critical situations such as cardiac arrest or when other confirmation methods are not available (8-10). However, before approval of ultrasonography as a promising technique for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement, it is necessary to pool the results of previously published studies. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the screening performance characteristics of ultrasonography in confirmation of endotracheal tube placement.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Searches

We performed a systematic search of the previous published papers investigating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Databases from inception to July 2021. The systematic search was carried out using medical subject heading (MeSH) terms for ''ultrasonography'' and ''intubation''. In this regard, we used ''sono'', ''sonography'', ''ultrasonography'', ''ultrasound'', ''endotracheal intubation'', ''esophageal intubation'', and ''intubation''. Our search had no restrictions with respect to location of study or publication date. Furthermore, in this meta-analysis, we only assessed human studies.

2.2. Selection Criteria

In this meta-analysis we included studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound to confirm endotracheal tube placement following emergency or elective intubation in adult subjects. The included studies were required to compare the findings of ultrasonography with a gold standard technique, such as fiberoptic bronchoscopy or capnography, for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement. Retrospective design studies, case reports, case series, and reviews were excluded and clinical trials, case-control or cohort design studies were included in this study. Investigations performed using mannequins, cadavers, or pediatric patients were excluded from the study. Two independent reviewers (M.F and B.Y) assessed the studies according to the above-mentioned criteria and any discrepancy between them was resolved by a third reviewer (M.K). In order to avoid possible duplicates, we searched the first author’s name, as well as the place and the period of the subjects’ enrolment. In the case of different versions of the same study, only the most recent was considered.

2.3. Data Extraction

Data were extracted by two reviewers and included characteristics of the studies (the first author, publication date, sample size, male percentage, mean age of participants, and location of intubation), ultrasonic technique, transducer type, percentage of esophageal intubation, gold standard for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement, and diagnostic accuracy parameters of ultrasonography (number of true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative). The process of data extraction was performed by two investigators independently and finally, inconsistencies regarding included studies were resolved by a third reviewer.

2.4. Data Synthesis

Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3 were used for statistical analysis. The heterogeneity among the included studies was investigated using Q-statistic and I2 index. If the value of I2 was higher than 50% or P-value was less than 0.10, the random model was used to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement. Alternatively, if the value of I2 was less than 50% and P-value was higher than 0.10, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were calculated using fixed model. Egger’s test and funnel plot were used to evaluate publication bias.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

Figure 1 summarizes the flow of studies in this review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A total of 9542 studies were identified in our preliminary search. After removal of 1682 duplicates, abstracts of the remaining 7860 studies were assessed by two independent reviewers (M.F and B.Y). The full-text of 142 articles were evaluated for eligibility and 107 article were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. Finally, 33 articles evaluating 2840 patients were included in our meta-analysis.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flowchart of the literature search and selection of studies that reported accuracy of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal placement

3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies

The characteristics of the 33 included studies are summarized in table 1. Studies were performed between 2007 and 2020, with the sample sizes ranging from 19–150 subjects. Most of the included studies were performed in Iran (seven studies). Twenty-nine studies were prospective observational studies and 4 were controlled trials. Five studies were conducted in ICUs, 10 were performed in operating rooms, and 18 were carried out in EDs. The prevalence of esophageal intubation was estimated to be 8.4% (95% CI: 6.5-10.8; Figure 2).

Table 1.

Characteristic of studies included in the meta-analysis

Gold
Standard 		Esophageal
Intubation (%) 		Transducer
Type 		Ultrasonic
Technique 		Male
(%) 		Mean
Age 		Location Sample
Size 		Year Author
CAP+A 4.1 Linear Dynamic 28 39.02 OR 120 2020 Chowdhury et al. (3)
DV+FB 10.2 NR Dynamic 60.2 71.5 ICU 118 2020 Chen et al. (1)
A+FB 17.6 Curvilinear Static 54 60.4 OR 68 2019 Men et al. (16)
CAP 2 Linear Dynamic NR NR ICU 91 2019 Patil et al. (17)
CAP 3.3 Linear Dynamic 58.9 59.2 ED 90 2019 Afzalimoghadam et al. (18)
CAP 6 Linear Dynamic 73 57.5 ED 100 2018 Zamani et al. (19)
A 2 Linear Static NR NR OR 100 2018 Kad et al. (20)
FB 10 Curvilinear Dynamic 65 55.7 ICU 40 2018 Kabil et al. (21)
CAP 6 Linear Dynamic 56 42.9 OR 50 2018 Inangil et al. (22)
CAP 16 Linear Dynamic 55.3 63.4 ICU 75 2018 Arya et al. (23)
CAP 7.5 Linear Dynamic 63.6 41.4 OR 107 2018 Arafa et al. (24)
O+AS+DV+A 11.3 Linear Static 56 58.5 ED 150 2017 Zamani et al. (25)
CAP+A 9.7 Linear Static 46 53.5 OR 93 2017 Yang et al. (26)
CAP 5 Linear Static 59 50.8 ED 100 2017 Thomas et al. (27)
DV 0 Linear Dynamic 62.7 61.1 ED 75 2017 Rahmani et al. (28)
CAP 6 Curvilinear Static 65 64.5 ED 100 2017 Masoumi et al. (8)
CAP 4.2 Linear Dynamic 56.9 57.7 ED 72 2017 Lahham et al. (9)
CAP 5 Linear Static NR 38.9 OR 100 2017 Abhishek et al. (5)
CAP+A 0 Linear Static 100 70.5 ICU 20 2016 Khosla et al. (29)
CAP 38.2 Linear Dynamic NR 67.2 ED 85 2016 Karacabey et al. (a) (10)
CAP NR Linear Dynamic NR NR ED 30 2016 Karacabey et al. (b) (10)
DV+A+CAP 11.7 Linear Dynamic/Static 61.5 50 ED 120 2015 Abbasia et al. (30)
CAP+A 7.3 Curvilinear Dynamic 67.6 68.8 ED 96 2014 Sun et al. (31)
DV+CAP 10 Linear Dynamic/Static NR 58 ED 101 2014 Hoffman et al. (32)
CAP 7.2 Linear Static NR NR ED 69 2013 Saglam et al. (33)
DV+A+O 21 Curvilinear Static 60 59 ED 57 2013 Hosseini et al. (34)
CAP+A 7.6 Curvilinear Dynamic 69 69.9 ED 89 2013 Chou et al. (a) (35)
CAP 5.6 Linear Static NR NR ED 107 2013 Adi et al. (36)
CAP 15.7 Linear Dynamic NR NR ED 19 2012 Noh et al. (37)
CAP+A 50 Linear Dynamic 50.7 40.5 OR 150 2011 Mulsu et al. (38)
CAP 15.7 Curvilinear Static 54.5 67.6 ED 83 2011 Chou et al. (b) (39)
CAP 10.3 Curvilinear Static NR NR ED 29 2011 Chou et al. (c) (39)
CAP+A 10 Linear Dynamic 56.7 59.6 ED 30 2009 Park et al. (40)
DV+CAP 57.6 Linear Dynamic 21.2 38.9 OR 66 2007 Werner et al. (41)
CAP+A 12.5 Curvilinear Dynamic 17.5 52.5 OR 40 2007 Milling et al. (42)
Open in a new tab

OR: operation room; ICU: intensive care unit; ED: emergency department; NR: not reported; CAP: capnography; A: auscultation; DV: direct visualization; FB: fiberoptic bronchoscopy; O: ; AS: .

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of prevalence of esophageal intubation

3.3. Publication Bias and Quality Assessment

Assessment of publication bias based on Egger's test showed that there was a statistically significant publication bias (P<0.01). Moreover, the funnel plot of included studies revealed significant asymmetry (Figure 3). Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using QUADAS-2 tool (Table 2).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Publication bias of the included studies for analysis of the rate of esophageal intubation confirmed using ultrasonography

Table 2.

Quality assessment of the included studies using QUADAS-2 tool

graphic file with name aaem-9-e68-g001.jpg
Open in a new tab

3.4. Diagnostic Accuracy Indices

The estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube location were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.96), respectively (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The pooled positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 5.94 (95% CI 4.41–7.98) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.04), respectively (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Furthermore, the diagnostic odds ratio of ultrasonography was 281.47 (95% CI: 168.91–469.06) (Figure 8). The area under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (HSROC) revealed an appropriate accuracy of 0.98 (Figure 9). Subgroup analysis based on transducer type and location of intubation (ICU or ED, or operating room) showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the overall sensitivity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the overall specificity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the overall positive likelihood ratio of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the overall negative likelihood ratio of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the overall diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) indicating accuracy of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement

4. Discussion

The results showed that the estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube location were 0.98 and 0.94, respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of ultrasonography was 281.47 and the area under HSROC revealed an appropriate accuracy of 0.98.

Our findings confirm the efficacy of ultrasonography as an adjunct for assessment of endotracheal tube location during intubation. It should be noted that these results are important since capnography has been considered to have low accuracy, especially in subjects with critical conditions. Similarly, ultrasonography has been approved by advanced cardiac life support guidelines as an adjunct for capnography to confirm endotracheal tube placement (11). Furthermore, most confirmatory techniques need some ventilation, which is associated with higher rates of aspiration and gastric distention in cases with wrong location of endotracheal tube (5, 12). On the other hand, ultrasonography does not increase risk of aspiration or gastric distention and has some advantages including being available in different locations, noninvasive, and rapid for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement.

In a similar study, Adhikari et al. (13) have performed a systematic search in different databases to identify studies evaluating efficacy of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement. Their systematic search yielded 5 eligible studies. In this study, the authors estimated 91% sensitivity (95% CI, 74% to 97%) and 97% specificity (95% CI, 89%to 99%) for ultrasonography, which are lower than those found in our study.

In another study, a systematic search was carried out in EMBASETM, MEDLINE, LILACS, The Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, OpenGrey, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from their inception to 2014, which yielded 11 studies with 969 patients (14). They reported pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography in confirming the placement of the tube as 0.98 and 0.98, respectively. Although their estimated pooled sensitivity was similar to that found in our study, their pooled specificity was higher than ours. These differences can partially be explained by the difference in the number of included studies, sample sizes of patients, and also causes of patient hospitalization.

Although our findings confirmed the efficacy of ultrasonography as a promising adjunct for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement, it should be noted that there are some significant limitations for ultrasonography. First, the efficacy of ultrasonography is dependent on the operator and ultrasonography by different operators may result in different ultrasonographic image qualities and decisions. Therefore, ultrasonography operators must obtain necessary skills before performing ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube location. Furthermore, ultrasonography cannot be performed easily in situations where there is only one operator, because that operator may be the technician performing endotracheal intubation. Therefore, in these cases, the static techniques is superior to dynamic technique. Moreover, the placement of ultrasonographic transducer on the trachea when a tube is entering the trachea may be associated with a more difficult intubation as it might deviate its path. In this regard, it has been suggested that the pressure of transducer on trachea should be reduced by ultrasonography operator to prevent deviation of endotracheal tube during intubation. If ultrasonography increases the risk of difficult intubation, the procedure should be performed using static technique. From another point of view, ultrasonography may be difficult for some intubations including cases with different airway anatomy, neck edema, cervical collar, subcutaneous emphysema, and neck masses. Unlike ultrasonography, capnography requires four to five ventilations to confirm the location of endotracheal tube placement, so ultrasonography is faster than capnography. However, the efficacy of capnography is not dependent on the experience of operator and training does not affect the accuracy of this method (15).

It is now well established that ultrasonography has several strong points for confirmation of endotracheal tube location. Deviation of endotracheal tube into the esophagus can be easily identified before initiation of ventilation because ultrasonography is carried out in real time during intubation. Since ultrasonography has an appropriate specificity for identification of esophageal intubation, this method can be used in cases with indefinite result of capnography to reduce the total number of intubation attempts. Furthermore, ultrasonography does not interfere with chest compression and intubation can be performed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, further studies with larger sample sizes using appropriate gold standards are required to establish ultrasonography as a promising diagnostic test for assessment of endotracheal tube location.

5. Limitations

Different methods of confirmation were used as gold standard to indicate sensitivity and specificity of sonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement.

6. Conclusion

The results showed that ultrasonography has high diagnostic accuracy and can be used as a promising tool for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement, especially in critically ill patients or when capnography is not available, or its result is equivocal.

7. Declarations

7.1. Acknowledgement

The authors thank all those who contributed to this study.

7.2. Author Contribution

All authors contributed to study design, data collection, writing draft of study.

7.3. Funding/Support

None.

7.4. Conflict of interest

None.

7.5. Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • 1.Chen W, Chen J, Wang H, Chen Y. Application of bedside real-time tracheal ultrasonography for confirmation of emergency endotracheal intubation in patients in the intensive care unit. Journal of International Medical Research. 2020;48(4):0300060519894771. doi: 10.1177/0300060519894771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Endlich Y, Lee J, Culwick MD. Difficult and failed intubation in the first 4000 incidents reported on webAIRS. Anaesthesia and intensive care. 2020;48(6):477–87. doi: 10.1177/0310057X20957657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chowdhury AR, Punj J, Pandey R, Darlong V, Sinha R, Bhoi D. Ultrasound is a reliable and faster tool for confirmation of endotracheal intubation compared to chest auscultation and capnography when performed by novice anaesthesia residents-A prospective controlled clinical trial. Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 2020;14(1) doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_180_19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sharma D, Tabatabaii SA, Farahbakhsh N. Role of ultrasound in confirmation of endotracheal tube in neonates: a review. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2019;32(8):1359–67. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1403581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Abhishek C, Munta K, Rao SM, Chandrasekhar C. End-tidal capnography and upper airway ultrasonography in the rapid confirmation of endotracheal tube placement in patients requiring intubation for general anaesthesia. Indian journal of anaesthesia. 2017;61(6):486. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_544_16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mitra A, Gave A, Coolahan K, Nguyen T. Confirmation of endotracheal tube placement using disposable fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the emergent setting. World journal of emergency medicine. 2019;10(4):210. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2019.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Silvestri S, Ladde JG, Brown JF, Roa JV, Hunter C, Ralls GA, et al. Endotracheal tube placement confirmation: 100% sensitivity and specificity with sustained four-phase capnographic waveforms in a cadaveric experimental model. Resuscitation. 2017;115:192–8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Masoumi B, Azizkhani R, Emam GH, Asgarzadeh M, Kharazi BZ. Predictive value of tracheal rapid ultrasound exam performed in the emergency department for verification of tracheal intubation. Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences. 2017;5(5):618. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2017.072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lahham S, Baydoun J, Bailey J, Sandoval S, Wilson SP, Fox JC, et al. A prospective evaluation of transverse tracheal sonography during emergent intubation by emergency medicine resident physicians. Journal of ultrasound in medicine. 2017;36(10):2079–85. doi: 10.1002/jum.14231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Karacabey S, Sanrı E, Gencer EG, Guneysel O. Tracheal ultrasonography and ultrasonographic lung sliding for confirming endotracheal tube placement: Speed and Reliability. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2016;34(6):953–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Callaway CW, Soar J, Aibiki M, Böttiger BW, Brooks SC, Deakin CD, et al. Part 4: advanced life support: 2015 international consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circulation. 2015;132(16_suppl_1):S84–S145. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Long B, Koyfman A, Vivirito MA. Capnography in the emergency department: a review of uses, waveforms, and limitations. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2017;53(6):829–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Adhikari S, Farrell I, Stolz U. 46 How Accurate Is Ultrasonography in Confirming Endotracheal Tube Placement? A Meta-analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2012;60(4):S18. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Das SK, Choupoo NS, Haldar R, Lahkar A. Transtracheal ultrasound for verification of endotracheal tube placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie. 2015;62(4):413–23. doi: 10.1007/s12630-014-0301-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gottlieb M, Holladay D, Peksa GD. Ultrasonography for the confirmation of endotracheal tube intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of emergency medicine. 2018;72(6):627–36. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.06.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Men XQ, Yan XX. Tracheal Ultrasound for the Accurate Confirmation of the Endotracheal Tube Position in Obese Patients. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2020;39(3):509–13. doi: 10.1002/jum.15127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Patil V, Bhosale S, Kulkarni A, Prabu N, Bhagat V, Chaudhary H, et al. Utility of ultrasound of upper airway for confirmation of endotracheal intubation and confirmation of the endotracheal tube position in the intensive care unit patients. J Emerg Crit Care Med. 2019;3:15. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Afzalimoghaddam M, Basiri K, Dvarani S, Bagheri F, Karimialavijeh E. The effectiveness of a short training course for emergency medicine residents to confirm tracheal tube placement by ultrasound. Crit Care Shock. 2019;22:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zamani M, Esfahani MN, Joumaa I, Heydari F. Accuracy of real-time intratracheal bedside ultrasonography and waveform capnography for confirmation of intubation in multiple trauma patients. Advanced biomedical research. 2018:7. doi: 10.4103/abr.abr_179_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kad N, Sikarwar A, Kumar V, Kumari D. A study to confirm the position of endotracheal tube using ultrasonography and standard auscultation method. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2018;5:L12–L6. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kabil AE, Ewis AM, Al-Ashkar AM, Abdelatif MA, Nour MO. Real-time tracheal ultrasonography for confirming endotracheal tube placement. Egyptian Journal of Bronchology. 2018;12(3):323–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Deniz S, INANGIL G, Temircan S, Bakal Ö, Sen H, Özkan S. Validation of tracheal intubation of wire-reinforced endotracheal tube with ultrasonography. Signa vitae: journal for intesive care and emergency medicine. 2018;14(2):20–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Arya R, Schrift D, Choe C, Al‐Jaghbeer M. Real‐time tracheal ultrasound for the confirmation of endotracheal intubations in the intensive care unit: an observational study. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2019;38(2):491–7. doi: 10.1002/jum.14723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Arafa S, Abouzkry A, Mohamady A. Accuracy of bedside upper airway ultrasonography vs standard auscultation for assuring the location of endotracheal tube after tracheal intubation: comparative study controlled by quantitative waveform capnography. J Anesth Clin Res. 2017:9. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moghadam HZ, Sharifi MD, Rajabi H, Bazaz MM, Alamdaran A, Jafari N, et al. Screening characteristics of bedside ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement; a diagnostic accuracy study. Emergency. 2017;5(1) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yang Y, Yue Y, Zhang D. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonic localization of endotracheal intubation. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017;10(7):10143–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Thomas VK, Paul C, Rajeev PC, Palatty BU. Reliability of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement in an emergency setting. Indian journal of critical care medicine: peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. 2017;21(5):257. doi: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_417_16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rahmani F, Parsian Z, Shahsavarinia K, Pouraghaei M, Negargar S, Esfanjani RM, et al. Diagnostic value of sonography for confirmation of endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Anesthesiology and pain medicine. 2017;7:6. doi: 10.5812/aapm.58350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rahul Khosla CK, Ahmad Alwassia. Using Ultrasound to Confirm Endotracheal Tube Position in the Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine. 2016;1(2) [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Abbasi S, Farsi D, Zare MA, Hajimohammadi M, Rezai M, Hafezimoghadam P. Direct ultrasound methods: a confirmatory technique for proper endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. 2015;22(1):10–6. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sun J-T, Sim S-S, Chou H-C, Chong K-M, Ma MH-M, Lien W-C. Ultrasonography for proper endotracheal tube placement confirmation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: two-center experience. Critical Ultrasound Journal. 2014;6:S1. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hoffmann B, Gullett JP, Hill HF, Fuller D, Westergaard MC, Hosek WT, et al. Bedside ultrasound of the neck confirms endotracheal tube position in emergency intubations. Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980) 2014;35(5):451–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1366014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sağlam C, Unlüer EE, Karagöz A. Confirmation of endotracheal tube position during resuscitation by bedside ultrasonography. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2013;31(1):248–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hosseini JS, Talebian MT, Ghafari MH, Eslami V. Secondary confirmation of endotracheal tube position by diaphragm motion in right subcostal ultrasound view. International journal of critical illness and injury science. 2013;3(2):113–7. doi: 10.4103/2229-5151.114269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chou HC, Chong KM, Sim SS, Ma MH, Liu SH, Chen NC, et al. Real-time tracheal ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2013;84(12):1708–12. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.06.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Adi O, Chuan TW, Rishya M. A feasibility study on bedside upper airway ultrasonography compared to waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location after intubation. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013;5(1) doi: 10.1186/2036-7902-5-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Noh JK, Cho YS. The comparison of airway ultrasonography and continuous waveform capnography to confirm endotracheal tube placement in cardiac arrest patients: prospective observational study. Crit Ultrasound J. 2012;4(Suppl 1) [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Muslu B, Sert H, Kaya A, Demircioglu RI, Gözdemir M, Usta B, et al. Use of sonography for rapid identification of esophageal and tracheal intubations in adult patients. Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2011;30(5):671–6. doi: 10.7863/jum.2011.30.5.671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chou HC, Tseng WP, Wang CH, Ma MH, Wang HP, Huang PC, et al. Tracheal rapid ultrasound exam for confirming endotracheal tube placement during emergency intubation. Resuscitation. 2011;82(10):1279–84. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Park SC, Ryu JH, Yeom SR, Jeong JW, Cho SJ. Confirmation of endotracheal intubation by combined ultrasonographic methods in the Emergency Department. Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA. 2009;21(4):293–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2009.01199.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Werner SL, Smith CE, Goldstein JR, Jones RA, Cydulka RK. Pilot study to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(1):75–80. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Milling TJ, Jones M, Khan T, Tad-y D, Melniker LA, Bove J, et al. Transtracheal 2-d ultrasound for identification of esophageal intubation. J Emerg Med. 2007;32(4):409–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2006.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine are provided here courtesy of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES