Airway injury from the presence of endotracheal tubes and the association with subglottic secretion drainage: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Laryngeal and tracheal injuries are known complications of endotracheal intubation. Endotracheal tubes (ETTs) with subglottic suction devices (SSDs) are commonly used in the critical care setting. There is concern that herniation of tissue into the suction port of these devices may lead to tracheal injury resulting in serious clinical consequences such as tracheal stenosis. We aimed to describe the type and location of tracheal injuries seen in intubated critically ill patients and assess injuries at the suction port as well as in-hospital complications associated with those injuries. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of 57 critically ill patients admitted to a level 3 intensive care unit who were endotracheally intubated and underwent percutaneous tracheostomy. Investigators performed bronchoscopy and photographic evaluation of the airway during the percutaneous tracheostomy procedure to evaluate tracheal and laryngeal injury. RESULTS: Forty-one (72%) patients intubated with ETT with SSD and sixteen (28%) patients with standard ETT were included in the study. Forty-seven (83%) patients had a documented airway injury ranging from hyperemia to deep ulceration of the mucosa. A common tracheal injury was at the site of the tracheal cuff. Injury at the site of the subglottic suction device was seen in 5/41 (12%) patients. There were no in-hospital complications. CONCLUSIONS: Airway injury was common in critically ill patients following endotracheal intubation, and tracheal injury commonly occurred at the site of the endotracheal cuff. Injury occurred at the site of the subglottic suction port in some patients although the clinical consequences of these injuries remain unclear.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les lésions laryngées et trachéales sont des complications connues de l'intubation endotrachéale. Les sondes endotrachéales (SET) avec dispositifs d'aspiration sous-glottiques (DASG) sont couramment utilisées aux soins intensifs. On craint qu'une hernie tissulaire dans l'orifice d'aspiration de ces dispositifs n'entraîne des lésions trachéales, résultant en de graves conséquences cliniques telles qu'une sténose trachéale. Nous avons cherché à décrire le type et l'emplacement des lésions trachéales observées chez les patients gravement malades intubés et à évaluer les lésions au port d'aspiration ainsi que les complications hospitalières associées à ces lésions. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude observationnelle prospective auprès de 57 patients gravement malades admis dans une unité de soins intensifs de niveau 3 qui ont été intubés par voie endotrachéale et ont subi une trachéostomie percutanée. Les chercheurs ont réalisé une bronchoscopie et une évaluation photographique des voies aériennes au cours de la trachéostomie percutanée afin d'évaluer les lésions trachéales et laryngées. RéSULTATS: Quarante et un (72 %) intubés par SET avec DASG et seize (28 %) patients avec SET standard ont été inclus dans l'étude. Quarante-sept (83 %) patients ont présenté une lésion documentée des voies aériennes allant de l'hyperémie à l'ulcération profonde de la muqueuse. Une lésion trachéale commune était localisée sur le site du ballonnet trachéal. Une lésion au site du dispositif d'aspiration sous-glottique a été observée chez 5/41 (12 %) patients. Il n'y a pas eu de complications à l'hôpital. CONCLUSION: Les lésions des voies aériennes étaient fréquentes chez les patients gravement malades après une intubation endotrachéale, et les lésions trachéales se produisaient généralement au site du ballonnet endotrachéal. Des lésions se sont produites au site de l'orifice d'aspiration sous-glottique chez certains patients, bien que les conséquences cliniques de ces lésions restent incertaines.

Anesthesiologist and Emergency Medicine Physician Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Etomidate for Intubation.

PURPOSE: The use of etomidate as an induction agent for critically ill patients is controversial. While its favorable hemodynamic profile is enviable, etomidate has been shown to cause transient adrenal suppression. The clinical consequences of transient adrenal suppression are poorly understood. Anecdotally, some clinicians advocate strongly for etomidate, while others feel it can cause significant harm. To better understand the current clinical environment with respect to single-dose etomidate use in critically ill patients, Canadian anesthesiologists and Canadian emergency medicine (EM) physicians were questioned regarding their opinions, knowledge, and preferences about etomidate use as an induction agent. METHODS: Invitations to participate with the electronic survey were sent to 100 Canadian EM physicians and 260 Canadian anesthesiologists. The survey had 4 general parts: demographics, familiarity with the current literature, choice of induction agent given various clinical scenarios, and opinions on the controversy. The Pearson γ2 test was used to detect whether significant differences exist between physician groups. RESULTS: Ninety three anesthesiologists and 42 EM physicians responded for response rates of 36% and 42%. There were no self-reported differences in knowledge about etomidate properties between EM physicians and anesthesiologists. There were significant differences in etomidate use between EM physicians and anesthesiologists in general rapid sequence intubation, noncritically ill patients, and those with undifferentiated hypotension. Both EM physicians and anesthesiologists describe the current etomidate controversy as significant and not adequately resolved. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in self-reported etomidate knowledge between anesthesiologists and EM physicians; however, significant practice pattern differences exist with EM physicians using etomidate more often. Broad agreement supports future research to investigate etomidate's impact in critically ill patients.

Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of etomidate for emergency airway interventions in critically ill patients is very common. In one large registry trial, etomidate was the most commonly used agent for this indication. Etomidate is known to suppress adrenal gland function, but it remains unclear whether or not this adrenal gland dysfunction affects mortality. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects mortality.The secondary objectives were to address, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects adrenal gland function, organ dysfunction, or health services utilization (as measured by intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor requirements).We repeated analyses within subgroups defined by the aetiologies of critical illness, timing of adrenal gland function measurement, and the type of comparator drug used. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; CINAHL; EMBASE; LILACS; International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; Web of Science; the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); and ISI BIOSIS Citation index(SM) on 8 February 2013. We reran the searches in August 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.We also searched the Scopus database of dissertations and conference proceedings and the US Food and Drug Administration Database. We handsearched major emergency medicine, critical care, and anaesthesiology journals.We handsearched the conference proceedings of major emergency medicine, anaesthesia, and critical care conferences from 1990 to current, and performed a grey literature search of the following: Current Controlled Trials; National Health Service - The National Research Register; ClinicalTrials.gov; NEAR website. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation for critical illness, including but not limited to trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, septic shock, hypovolaemic or haemorrhagic shock, and undifferentiated shock states. We included single (bolus) dose etomidate for emergency airway intervention compared to any other rapid-acting intravenous bolus single-dose induction agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Refinement of our initial search results by title review, and then by abstract review was carried out by three review authors. Full-text review of potential studies was based on their adherence to our inclusion and exclusion criteria. This was decided by three independent review authors. We reported the decisions regarding inclusion and exclusion in accordance with the PRISMA statement.Electronic database searching yielded 1635 potential titles, and our grey literature search yielded an additional 31 potential titles. Duplicate titles were filtered leaving 1395 titles which underwent review of their titles and abstracts by three review authors. Sixty seven titles were judged to be relevant to our review, however only eight met our inclusion criteria and seven were included in our analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies in the review and seven in the meta-analysis. Of those seven studies, only two were judged to be at low risk of bias. Overall, no strong evidence exists that etomidate increases mortality in critically ill patients when compared to other bolus dose induction agents (odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.60, 6 studies, 772 participants, moderate quality evidence). Due to a large number of participants lost to follow-up, we performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis. This gave a similar result (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). There was evidence that the use of etomidate in critically ill patients was associated with a positive adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test, and this difference was more pronounced at between 4 to 6 hours (OR 19.98; 95% CI 3.95 to 101.11) than after 12 hours (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.61 to 3.47) post-dosing. Etomidate's use in critically ill patients was associated with a small increase in SOFA score, indicating a higher risk of multisystem organ failure (mean difference (MD) 0.70; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.39, 2 studies, 591 participants, high quality evidence), but this difference was not clinically meaningful. Etomidate use did not have an effect on ICU LOS (MD 1.70 days; 95% CI -2.00 to 5.40, 4 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), hospital LOS (MD 2.41 days; 95% CI -7.08 to 11.91, 3 studies, 152 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.14 days; 95% CI -1.67 to 5.95, 3 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), or duration of vasopressor use (MD 1.00 day; 95% CI -0.53 to 2.53, 1 study, 469 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although we have not found conclusive evidence that etomidate increases mortality or healthcare resource utilization in critically ill patients, it does seem to increase the risk of adrenal gland dysfunction and multi-organ system dysfunction by a small amount. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown. This evidence is judged to be of moderate quality, owing mainly to significant attrition bias in some of the smaller studies, and new research may influence the outcomes of our review. The applicability of these data may be limited by the fact that 42% of the patients in our review were intubated for "being comatose", a population less likely to benefit from the haemodynamic stability inherent in etomidate use, and less at risk from its potential negative downstream effects of adrenal suppression.