![]() |
||
| 7625 West New York Street | ||
| Indianapolis, Indiana 46214-4911 USA | ||
| Telephone: (317) 273-6960 | ||
| Facsimile: (317) 273-6979 | ||
| Order Desk Telephone: (800) 401-1723 | ||
| Order Desk Facsimile: (800) 515-9254 | ||
| E-mail: flotec@floteco2.com | ||
| Esophageal Detection Device (EDD) | ||
Comparison of a Colorimetric End-Tidal CO2
Detector and an Esophageal Aspiration Device for Verifying Endotracheal Tube
Placement in the Prehospital Setting: A Six-Month Experience
Richard J. Schaller MD,1 J. Stephen Huff, MD, FACEP,2
Allan Zahn, MD3
1. Chief Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, Eastern
2. Eastern
3. Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, Eastern
Correspondence:
Richard Schaller, MD
244
Telephone (609) 859-1638
Key Words: capnography; colorimetric end-tidal CO2 detector; EDD; endotracheal intubation, endotracheal tube, esophageal detector device; esophageal intubation; prehospital
Abstract
Introduction: Hand held, colorimetric, end-tidal CO2 detector
devices are being used to verify correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement. The
accuracy of these devices has been questioned in situations of cardiac arrest.
The use of the esophageal detector device (EDD) is an easy alternative for
detection of ETT placement, and may be more accurate in situations of cardiac
arrest.
Hypothesis: The use of the esophageal aspiration device in comparison with
a colorimetric end-tidal CO2 detector is more accurate in detecting proper ETT
placement and easier to use in the prehospital setting than is the colorimetric
end-tidal CO2 detection device.
Methods: This was a prospective alternating weeks, 6-month study in a
prehospital setting. Participants included all patients older than 18 years who
were intubated by the
Results: There were 49 patients who met the inclusion criteria, but six
were excluded because of situational circumstances rendering use of the device a
possible compromise of patient care. Twenty-five patients were in the EDD group,
and 18 were in the end-tidal CO2 detector group. There was no
statistically significant difference detected between groups for the gender
ratio, underlying condition, CPR in progress, perceived difficulty of intubation,
or percentage of nasotracheal intubation. The EDD was significantly easier to
use (p <0.005). There was no statistically significant difference in time
required for use of end-tidal CO2 detector device versus the EDD. The
sensitivity and specificity for correct tracheal placement using the EDD was
100%, and the sensitivity for correct tracheal placement using the end-tidal CO2
detector device was 78%. Use of the EDD was preferred over use of the end-tidal
CO2 detector device by 75% of participating
Conclusion: The EDD was accurate in all cases of orotracheal intubation,
and was easier to use than was end-tidal CO2 detector device. It was
preferred by 75% of participating
Schaller RJ, Huff JS, Zahn A: Comparison of a colorimetric end-tidal CO2 detector and an esophageal aspiration device for verifying endotracheal tube placement in the prehospital etting: A six-month experience. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1997; 12(1):57-63.
B-PRA-EDD White Paper(2).doc(