We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Endotracheal Tube Size Adjustments Within Seven Days of Neonatal Intubation.
Pediatrics 2024 April 2
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neonatal endotracheal tube (ETT) size recommendations are based on limited evidence. We sought to determine data-driven weight-based ETT sizes for infants undergoing tracheal intubation and to compare these with Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) recommendations.
METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study from an international airway registry. We evaluated ETT size changes (downsizing to a smaller ETT during the procedure or upsizing to a larger ETT within 7 days) and risk of procedural adverse outcomes associated with first-attempt ETT size selection when stratifying the cohort into 200 g subgroups.
RESULTS: Of 7293 intubations assessed, the initial ETT was downsized in 5.0% of encounters and upsized within 7 days in 1.5%. ETT downsizing was most common when NRP-recommended sizes were attempted in the following weight subgroups: 1000 to 1199 g with a 3.0 mm (12.6%) and 2000 to 2199 g with a 3.5 mm (17.1%). For infants in these 2 weight subgroups, selection of ETTs 0.5 mm smaller than NRP recommendations was independently associated with lower odds of adverse outcomes compared with NRP-recommended sizes. Among infants weighing 1000 to 1199 g: any tracheal intubation associated event, 20.8% with 2.5 mm versus 21.9% with 3.0 mm (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.94); severe oxygen desaturation, 35.2% with 2.5 mm vs 52.9% with 3.0 mm (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75). Among infants weighing 2000 to 2199 g: severe oxygen desaturation, 41% with 3.0 mm versus 56% with 3.5mm (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: For infants weighing 1000 to 1199 g and 2000 to 2199 g, the recommended ETT size was frequently downsized during the procedure, whereas 0.5 mm smaller ETT sizes were associated with fewer adverse events and were rarely upsized.
METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study from an international airway registry. We evaluated ETT size changes (downsizing to a smaller ETT during the procedure or upsizing to a larger ETT within 7 days) and risk of procedural adverse outcomes associated with first-attempt ETT size selection when stratifying the cohort into 200 g subgroups.
RESULTS: Of 7293 intubations assessed, the initial ETT was downsized in 5.0% of encounters and upsized within 7 days in 1.5%. ETT downsizing was most common when NRP-recommended sizes were attempted in the following weight subgroups: 1000 to 1199 g with a 3.0 mm (12.6%) and 2000 to 2199 g with a 3.5 mm (17.1%). For infants in these 2 weight subgroups, selection of ETTs 0.5 mm smaller than NRP recommendations was independently associated with lower odds of adverse outcomes compared with NRP-recommended sizes. Among infants weighing 1000 to 1199 g: any tracheal intubation associated event, 20.8% with 2.5 mm versus 21.9% with 3.0 mm (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.94); severe oxygen desaturation, 35.2% with 2.5 mm vs 52.9% with 3.0 mm (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75). Among infants weighing 2000 to 2199 g: severe oxygen desaturation, 41% with 3.0 mm versus 56% with 3.5mm (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: For infants weighing 1000 to 1199 g and 2000 to 2199 g, the recommended ETT size was frequently downsized during the procedure, whereas 0.5 mm smaller ETT sizes were associated with fewer adverse events and were rarely upsized.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app