PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8342836

The esophageal detector device. Does it work?

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The esophageal detector device (EDD) is a diagnostic tool for confirmation of tracheal intubation. Capnography is the accepted standard for such confirmation. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether results using the EDD and capnography agree. METHODS: Five hundred patients were divided into three separate studies. In study 1, with 300 consecutive patients, tracheal intubation was performed and tested with the EDD followed by capnography. In study 2, 100 patients had the esophagus intentionally intubated, and confirmation was tested similarly. The tube was then removed and the trachea intubated, and testing followed. Study 3 involved 100 patients and used a double-blind, randomized design. The tube was intentionally inserted into either the esophagus (n = 5) or trachea (n = 49), and testing followed. RESULTS: In study 1, the compressed EDD bulb reinflated 270 times and always agreed with capnography; in 20 of the 270 subjects (7%) bulb reinflation was delayed, taking from 5-30 s. In 30 instances, the bulb remained compressed, and there was no capnogram indicating esophageal intubation. In study 2, regardless of esophageal or tracheal intubation, agreement between EDD and capnogram was 100%. In study 3, the agreement between the two detecting instruments was 100%, but reinflation of the EDD bulb was delayed in 4% of tracheal intubations. In the 500 patients studied, results from the EDD and capnogram always agreed, but in 6% of all tracheal intubations, the EDD bulb inflated slowly. Of 181 esophageal intubations, the results from the EDD and capnogram always agreed, i.e., there was no reinflation or capnogram. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value for the EDD in all of these studies was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The EDD is a valuable diagnostic technique for confirming tracheal intubation. Results using EDD agree with results using capnography; in 6% of instances there is a slow reinflation; and where there is no capnography, such as on hospital wards, EDD may be a useful diagnostic tool.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Zaleski, D Abello, M I Gold. 1993. The esophageal detector device. Does it work?. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199308000-00008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Redefining response in overactive bladder syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three potential definitions of treatment response in overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome, based on the International Continence Society (ICS) definition of OAB, using pooled data from two large clinical trials of the antimuscarinic agent solifenacin succinate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As the ICS definition of OAB does not rely on urodynamic observations for a diagnosis, the use of composite endpoints, such as in the definitions examined here, might provide a more relevant measure of patient benefits. Each definition was tested to assess the impact of pharmacotherapy, comparing treatment response rates based on composite endpoints. Responder definitions were validated based on the impact on quality of life (QoL). Pooled data from two 12-week multinational, multicentre, double-blind randomized studies of solifenacin, a once-daily oral antimuscarinic for treating OAB symptoms, were used for this analysis. Based on the symptom data from these studies (episodes of urgency, incontinence, nocturia and voiding frequency per 24 h), response was defined as being: (i) a reduction by half or more in all baseline symptoms; (ii) a reduction by half or more in urgency and at least one other symptom; or (iii) resolution of urgency episodes and at least one other symptom. Health-related QoL changes were recorded using the King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). RESULTS: Solifenacin at 5 mg or 10 mg once daily resulted in significantly higher response rates than with placebo, irrespective of the definition of a responder (P < or = 0.001). When assessing the most challenging definition of response (resolution of urgency and at least one other symptom), solifenacin at 5 mg and 10 mg resulted in 20% and 25% of patients, respectively, meeting the response criteria, vs 12% of placebo-treated patients (P < or = 0.001 for both solifenacin doses). For all three definitions of response, responders showed greater improvements in all KHQ domains than did nonresponders, and the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The two strictest definitions of response (halving or more in all baseline symptoms or resolution of urgency and more than one other symptom) appeared to capture QoL changes most effectively. Establishing the most appropriate definition to assess treatment-related changes in OAB will require further investigation, but it is clear from this analysis that composite clinical endpoints, based on the ICS definition of OAB, are a valid approach for assessing the effect of treatments for OAB.

Double-Blind Method↗