A randomized, single-blinded, prospective study that compares complications between cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients

Alberto J. De Armendi, Amir L. Butt, Mohanad Shukry, Jorge A. Cure, Kimberly Hollabaugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Abstract Study Objective To compare any association between the problematic distal placement of cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes (NETTs) of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients. Design Randomized, single-blinded, prospective study. Setting Operating room at The Children's Hospital. Patients Pediatric patients (aged 2-18 years) scheduled for dental surgery under general anesthesia whose American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status is not greater than 2. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to preformed cuffed (1) RAE (Ring-Adair-Elwyn) endotracheal tube by Mallinckrodt or (2) nasal AGT NETT by Rüsch. Measurements The distance between the tube's distal end and the carina was measured using a fiber optic bronchoscope. Problematic placements were defined where the tip of the tubes was within 0.5 cm of carina. Main Results The odds of a problematic placement was 7 times higher (95% confidence interval of odds ratio, 2.06, 23.4) in patients managed with cuffed tubes than those with uncuffed tubes (P =.002). The distance between the tip of cuffed NETT tubes and carina was significantly less than with uncuffed tubes. Conclusions The chances of possible complications were significantly higher with cuffed NETT. The NETT should be kept at least 0.5 cm above carina to avoid possible complications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number7887
Pages (from-to)221-225
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Anesthesia
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nose
Prospective Studies
Pediatrics
Bronchoscopes
Operating Rooms
General Anesthesia
Tooth
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • Cuffed NETT complications
  • Dental cases
  • Nasal endotracheal intubation
  • Pediatric anesthesia
  • Single lung ventilation
  • Uncuffed NETT complications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

A randomized, single-blinded, prospective study that compares complications between cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients. / De Armendi, Alberto J.; Butt, Amir L.; Shukry, Mohanad; Cure, Jorge A.; Hollabaugh, Kimberly.

In: Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Vol. 27, No. 3, 7887, 01.05.2015, p. 221-225.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{25ae9e2167dc43e882a34b39fc555547,
title = "A randomized, single-blinded, prospective study that compares complications between cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients",
abstract = "Abstract Study Objective To compare any association between the problematic distal placement of cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes (NETTs) of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients. Design Randomized, single-blinded, prospective study. Setting Operating room at The Children's Hospital. Patients Pediatric patients (aged 2-18 years) scheduled for dental surgery under general anesthesia whose American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status is not greater than 2. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to preformed cuffed (1) RAE (Ring-Adair-Elwyn) endotracheal tube by Mallinckrodt or (2) nasal AGT NETT by R{\"u}sch. Measurements The distance between the tube's distal end and the carina was measured using a fiber optic bronchoscope. Problematic placements were defined where the tip of the tubes was within 0.5 cm of carina. Main Results The odds of a problematic placement was 7 times higher (95{\%} confidence interval of odds ratio, 2.06, 23.4) in patients managed with cuffed tubes than those with uncuffed tubes (P =.002). The distance between the tip of cuffed NETT tubes and carina was significantly less than with uncuffed tubes. Conclusions The chances of possible complications were significantly higher with cuffed NETT. The NETT should be kept at least 0.5 cm above carina to avoid possible complications.",
keywords = "Cuffed NETT complications, Dental cases, Nasal endotracheal intubation, Pediatric anesthesia, Single lung ventilation, Uncuffed NETT complications",
author = "{De Armendi}, {Alberto J.} and Butt, {Amir L.} and Mohanad Shukry and Cure, {Jorge A.} and Kimberly Hollabaugh",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinane.2014.11.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "221--225",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Anesthesia",
issn = "0952-8180",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized, single-blinded, prospective study that compares complications between cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients

AU - De Armendi, Alberto J.

AU - Butt, Amir L.

AU - Shukry, Mohanad

AU - Cure, Jorge A.

AU - Hollabaugh, Kimberly

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Abstract Study Objective To compare any association between the problematic distal placement of cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes (NETTs) of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients. Design Randomized, single-blinded, prospective study. Setting Operating room at The Children's Hospital. Patients Pediatric patients (aged 2-18 years) scheduled for dental surgery under general anesthesia whose American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status is not greater than 2. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to preformed cuffed (1) RAE (Ring-Adair-Elwyn) endotracheal tube by Mallinckrodt or (2) nasal AGT NETT by Rüsch. Measurements The distance between the tube's distal end and the carina was measured using a fiber optic bronchoscope. Problematic placements were defined where the tip of the tubes was within 0.5 cm of carina. Main Results The odds of a problematic placement was 7 times higher (95% confidence interval of odds ratio, 2.06, 23.4) in patients managed with cuffed tubes than those with uncuffed tubes (P =.002). The distance between the tip of cuffed NETT tubes and carina was significantly less than with uncuffed tubes. Conclusions The chances of possible complications were significantly higher with cuffed NETT. The NETT should be kept at least 0.5 cm above carina to avoid possible complications.

AB - Abstract Study Objective To compare any association between the problematic distal placement of cuffed and uncuffed nasal endotracheal tubes (NETTs) of different sizes and brands in pediatric patients. Design Randomized, single-blinded, prospective study. Setting Operating room at The Children's Hospital. Patients Pediatric patients (aged 2-18 years) scheduled for dental surgery under general anesthesia whose American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status is not greater than 2. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to preformed cuffed (1) RAE (Ring-Adair-Elwyn) endotracheal tube by Mallinckrodt or (2) nasal AGT NETT by Rüsch. Measurements The distance between the tube's distal end and the carina was measured using a fiber optic bronchoscope. Problematic placements were defined where the tip of the tubes was within 0.5 cm of carina. Main Results The odds of a problematic placement was 7 times higher (95% confidence interval of odds ratio, 2.06, 23.4) in patients managed with cuffed tubes than those with uncuffed tubes (P =.002). The distance between the tip of cuffed NETT tubes and carina was significantly less than with uncuffed tubes. Conclusions The chances of possible complications were significantly higher with cuffed NETT. The NETT should be kept at least 0.5 cm above carina to avoid possible complications.

KW - Cuffed NETT complications

KW - Dental cases

KW - Nasal endotracheal intubation

KW - Pediatric anesthesia

KW - Single lung ventilation

KW - Uncuffed NETT complications

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927177793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927177793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2014.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2014.11.003

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 221

EP - 225

JO - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

JF - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

SN - 0952-8180

IS - 3

M1 - 7887

ER -