Assessment of the proper depth of endotracheal tube placement with the Trachlight.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the correct depth of the endotracheal tube can be confirmed by transillumination method using the Trachlight device, which is a newly introduced lighted stylet for guided, blind tracheal intubation. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized pilot-trial. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: 72 intubated and mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were briefly disconnected from the respirator. The centimeter marks of the Trachlight cather were brought into line with those of the endotracheal tube, resulting in congruence of the bulb of the Trachlight and the tube tip. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To measure the distance from the tip of the tube to that of the sternal notch, the Trachlight wand was retracted without moving the endotracheal tube until the bright light appeared in the sternal notch. A chest radiograph was taken to measure the distance between the carina and the tip of the tube. The Trachlight showed a distance of 4.0 +/- 1.3 cm from the tip of the tube to the sternal notch. Chest radiography revealed a distance of 3.3 +/- 1.6 cm between the carina and the tip of the tube, so that the calculated distance between sternal notch and carina was 7.3 +/- 1.5 cm. CONCLUSION: To achieve proper depth of the endotracheal tube, it is recommended that the tip of the endotracheal tube be placed 3 cm beyond the sternal notch. The Trachlight provides a simple and easy technique to achieve this goal.

Diagnostic validity of pulmonary artery catheterization for residents at an intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the amount of additional information provided by measurements derived from pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use beyond that derived from clinical evaluation by intensive care residents. METHODS: One hundred forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing right-heart catheterization were prospectively included in the study. Before inserting a PAC, physicians had to predict pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), cardiac index (CI), mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), oxygen delivery (DO2), oxygen consumption (VO2), and pulmonary shunt fraction (Qs/Qt) by selecting a given option on a questionnaire. Ranges of options were chosen to create clear clinical differences among them. RESULTS: The correct value was predicted in a median of 50% of cases (range, 45-63%). PAP was predicted correctly in 55%, PCWP in 46%, SVRI in 63%, CI in 62%, SvO2 in 45%, DO2 in 45%, VO2 in 51%, and Qs/Qt in 51%. A significant difference was found between estimated and measured values for all parameters (p < 0.01). No significant differences were detected between more and less experienced physicians. There was no significant difference between estimated and measured values with respect to the different courses of intensive care unit admissions or the different indications for PAC insertion. CONCLUSION: In a selected group of critically ill patients, the PAC adds valuable and clinically relevant information to clinical assessment in about 50% of cases. Its use should not be withheld in patients with unclear hemodynamic and metabolic profiles.