4.0 Article

Ideal endotracheal tube insertion depth in neonates with a birthweight less than 750 g

Journal

PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 62, Issue 8, Pages 932-936

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ped.14245

Keywords

birthweight; extremely low birthweight; gestational age; intubation; radiography

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Appropriate management of the endotracheal tube (ETT) insertion depth is important. The depth calculated using Tochen's formula is overestimated in extremely-low- birthweight infants, particularly those with a birthweight <750 g. Gestational age has been shown to be particularly useful in the Neonatal Resuscitation Program, 7th edition.(5)However, a randomized trial for estimating the ETT insertion depth failed to show the advantage of using gestational age over birthweight.(6)Therefore, we aimed to estimate the appropriate ETT insertion depth in neonates weighing <750 g. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective observational study including neonates weighing <750 g who required intubation. The appropriate depth was determined by adjusting the distance between the actual ETT position and the area from the first to the second thoracic vertebra on the radiograph. Correlations between gestational age and physique were investigated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. We examined small-for- gestational-age (SGA) infants and non-SGA infants separately. Results Forty neonates were enrolled in this study. The mean gestational age and birthweight were 26.3 weeks and 620 g respectively. Twenty infants were SGA. The ETT position was deep in 35 of 40 cases, with the strongest correlation between weight and ETT insertion depth. The correlation with gestational age was not observed in this study. Conclusions Our study showed that the ideal ETT insertion depth at birth correlates with birthweight in neonates weighing <750 g. Therefore, determination by gestational age may not be feasible in populations with a high proportion of SGA infants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available