Clinical tests for confirming tracheal intubation or excluding oesophageal intubation: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis

Unrecognised oesophageal intubation causes preventable serious harm to patients undergoing tracheal intubation. When capnography is unavailable or doubted, clinicians still use clinical findings to confirm tracheal intubation, or exclude oesophageal intubation, and false reassurance from clinical examination is a recurring theme in fatal cases of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of five clinical examination tests and the oesophageal detector device when used to confirm tracheal intubation. We searched four databases for studies reporting index clinical tests against a reference standard, from inception to 28 February 2023. We included 49 studies involving 10,654 participants. Methodological quality was overall moderate to high. We looked at misting (three studies, 115 participants); lung auscultation (three studies, 217 participants); combined lung and epigastric auscultation (four studies, 506 participants); the oesophageal detector device (25 studies, 3024 participants); 'hang-up' (two non-human studies); and chest rise (one non-human study). The reference standards used were capnography (22 studies); direct vision (10 studies); and bronchoscopy (three studies). When used to confirm tracheal intubation, misting has a false positive rate (95%CI) of 0.69 (0.43-0.87); lung auscultation 0.14 (0.08-0.23); five-point auscultation 0.18 (0.08-0.36); and the oesophageal detector device 0.05 (0.02-0.09). Tests to exclude events that invariably lead to severe damage or death must have a negligible false positive rate. Misting or auscultation have too high a false positive rate to reliably exclude oesophageal intubation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of 'hang-up' or chest rise. The oesophageal detector device may be considered where other more reliable means are not available, though waveform capnography remains the reference standard for confirmation of tracheal intubation.

Preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation: a consensus guideline from the Project for Universal Management of Airways and international airway societies

Across multiple disciplines undertaking airway management globally, preventable episodes of unrecognised oesophageal intubation result in profound hypoxaemia, brain injury and death. These events occur in the hands of both inexperienced and experienced practitioners. Current evidence shows that unrecognised oesophageal intubation occurs sufficiently frequently to be a major concern and to merit a co-ordinated approach to address it. Harm from unrecognised oesophageal intubation is avoidable through reducing the rate of oesophageal intubation, combined with prompt detection and immediate action when it occurs. The detection of 'sustained exhaled carbon dioxide' using waveform capnography is the mainstay for excluding oesophageal placement of an intended tracheal tube. Tube removal should be the default response when sustained exhaled carbon dioxide cannot be detected. If default tube removal is considered dangerous, urgent exclusion of oesophageal intubation using valid alternative techniques is indicated, in parallel with evaluation of other causes of inability to detect carbon dioxide. The tube should be removed if timely restoration of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide cannot be achieved. In addition to technical interventions, strategies are required to address cognitive biases and the deterioration of individual and team performance in stressful situations, to which all practitioners are vulnerable. These guidelines provide recommendations for preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation that are relevant to all airway practitioners independent of geography, clinical location, discipline or patient type.

Project for Universal Management of Airways - part 1: concept and methods

Multiple professional groups and societies worldwide have produced airway management guidelines. These are typically targeted at the process of tracheal intubation by a particular provider group in a restricted category of patients and reflect practice preferences in a particular geographical region. The existence of multiple distinct guidelines for some (but not other) closely related circumstances, increases complexity and may obscure the underlying principles that are common to all of them. This has the potential to increase cognitive load; promote the grouping of ideas in silos; impair teamwork; and ultimately compromise patient care. Development of a single set of airway management guidelines that can be applied across and beyond these domains may improve implementation; promote standardisation; and facilitate collaboration between airway practitioners from diverse backgrounds. A global multidisciplinary group of both airway operators and assistants was assembled. Over a 3-year period, a review of the existing airway guidelines and multiple reviews of the primary literature were combined with a structured process for determining expert consensus. Any discrepancies between these were analysed and reconciled. Where evidence in the literature was lacking, recommendations were made by expert consensus. Using the above process, a set of evidence-based airway management guidelines was developed in consultation with airway practitioners from a broad spectrum of disciplines and geographical locations. While consistent with the recommendations of the existing English language guidelines, these universal guidelines also incorporate the most recent concepts in airway management as well as statements on areas not widely addressed by the existing guidelines. The recommendations will be published in four parts that respectively address: airway evaluation; airway strategy; airway rescue and communication of airway outcomes. Together, these universal guidelines will provide a single, comprehensive approach to airway management that can be consistently applied by airway practitioners globally, independent of their clinical background or the circumstances in which airway management occurs.