heading Transtracheal ultrasound can accurately guide and verify endotracheal tube placement Positive LR findings LR+: 34 for transtracheal ultrasound confirmation of endotracheal tube placement Negative LR findings LR-: 0.01 for transtracheal ultrasound confirmation of endotracheal tube placement Who was in the studies 17 studies comprising 1,595 patients, with 12 studies conducted in the ED
NARRATIVEEndotracheal intubation is a common intervention in the emergency department (ED) and prehospital setting. Direct visualization of endotracheal tube (ETT) placement through the vocal cords is limited at times, and esophageal intubation can be dangerous if not recognized. 1 Therefore, additional methods (e.g., lung auscultation, esophageal detector devices, capnography) are necessary for confirmation of tube placement. However, these methods are not always reliable. 2-4 Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has increasingly been used as a potential confirmatory tool for ETT confirmation. The 2015 Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines state that POCUS may be a useful adjunct for ETT confirmation. 5The meta-analysis discussed here included prospective observational or randomized controlled trials evaluating transtracheal POCUS for ETT placement confirmation in patients older than 18 years. 6 All studies included a confirmatory test for comparison (e.g. end-tidal capnography, colorimetric capnography, direct visualization). The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of transtracheal POCUS for ETT confirmation, with subgroup analyses including location, provider specialty, provider experience, transducer type, and POCUS technique. The authors also assessed time to confirmation as a secondary outcome.The authors of the meta-analysis identified 17 studies (n = 1,595 patients) that met their inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were performed in the ED, and five studies were conducted in the operating room. Overall, POCUS was 98.7% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 97.8% to 99.2%) and 97.1% specific (95% CI = 92.4% to 99.0%), with a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 34.4 (95% CI = 12.7 to 93.1) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.01 (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.02). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated a high degree of accuracy (area under the curve = 0.994; 95% CI = 0.982 to 0.998). The mean time to confirmation was 13.0 seconds (95% CI = 12.0 to 14.0 From the