Kaminski A, Dike NO, Bachista K, Boniface M, Dove C, Simon LV. Differences Between Esophageal and Tracheal Intubation Ultrasound View Proficiency: An Educational Study of Novice Prehospital Providers.
Cureus 2020;
12:e8686. [PMID:
32699685 PMCID:
PMC7370683 DOI:
10.7759/cureus.8686]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives
Airway ultrasound is now possible in the prehospital setting due to advances in ultrasound equipment portability. We questioned how well prehospital providers without prior experience could determine both esophageal and tracheal placement of an endotracheal tube in cadavers after a brief training course in ultrasound.
Methods
This educational prospective study at the Simulation Center in Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Florida enrolled 50 prehospital providers. Demographic and practice background information was obtained through surveys. Each participant performed a baseline ultrasound to determine endotracheal tube placement in a cadaver that was randomly assigned to an esophageal or tracheal intubation. Participants then repeated the randomized testing after a 15-minute tutorial. Before and after overall accuracy as well as proportions of correct identification of esophageal and tracheal intubations were determined and compared using standard binomial proportion and McNemar’s tests.
Results
None of the participants had prior experience of performing airway ultrasound. Baseline group scores were 60% (CI 45%-74%) for overall accuracy (n=50), 55% (CI 32%-76%) for correct identification of an esophageal intubation, and 64% (CI 44%-81%) for correct tracheal detection. Baseline scores were not significantly different from standard binomial distributions. Post-test scores were 82% (CI 69%-91%) for overall accuracy, 96% (CI 80%-100%) for esophageal intubation detection, and 66.7% (CI 45%-84%) for tracheal intubation detection, with corresponding binomial p-values of <0.001, <0.001, and 0.15. P-values for McNemar’s paired test for combined overall accuracy, correct esophageal detection, and correct tracheal detection were 0.04, 0.02, and 0.62, respectively.
Conclusions
Prehospital participants without prior ultrasound experience demonstrated significant gains in airway ultrasound proficiency after a limited introductory course. Post-training score increases were largely due to a notable increase in correct esophageal intubation detection rates. Learners did not make significant progress in correctly identifying a tracheal intubation. Airway ultrasound educational design may benefit from added emphasis on the potentially more difficult to recognize tracheal intubation view.
Collapse