• M R Sayre, J Sakles, A Mistler, J Evans, A Kramer, and A M Pancioli.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0769, USA.
• Prehosp Disaster Med. 1994 Oct 1;9(4):234-7.

HypothesisAdvanced airway intervention techniques are being considered for use by basic emergency medical technicians (EMTs). It was hypothesized that basic EMTs would be able to discriminate reliably between intratracheal and esophageal endotracheal tube placement in a mannequin model.DesignAn airway mannequin with a closed chest cavity was intubated randomly either esophageally or tracheally, and the cuff was inflated. A stethoscope, bag ventilator, and laryngoscope were available next to the mannequin. Placement was assessed by auscultation or direct visualization at the discretion of the EMT. A blinded investigator graded the student.SettingA classroom in a large, urban medical center.ParticipantsSubjects were basic EMTs who volunteered to take part after the conclusion of a six-hour endotracheal intubation training course.ResultsThirty-three subjects were tested. Seventeen of 18 (94%) tracheal intubations and 11 of 15 (73%) esophageal intubations were identified correctly. Only 72% of the students listened to the epigastrium, 81% listened to the lungs, and 85% attempted ventilation. The 10 students who visualized the cords discovered all five esophageal intubations. The 23 students who did not visualize the cords missed four and found six esophageal intubations.ConclusionBasic EMTs had difficulty assessing endotracheal tube placement in a mannequin model. The 27% miss rate for identifying esophageal intubations suggests that basic EMTs will require additional training for safe field use of any airway that requires assessment of tube placement.

17 keywords...

hide…