You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Cuffed endotracheal tubes in neonates and infants: a survey of practice
  1. Rebecca Thomas1,2,
  2. Shripada Rao1,2,3,
  3. Corrado Minutillo1
  1. 1Neonatal Clinical Care Unit, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  2. 2Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  3. 3Neonatal Clinical Care Unit, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rebecca Thomas, Neonatal Clinical Care Unit, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Roberts Road, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia; Rebecca.Thomas2{at}health.wa.gov.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309241

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    High volume low pressure cuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) are being used with increasing frequency in neonates during anaesthesia and in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). The incidence of use of cuffed ETTs in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) is unknown.

    To our knowledge, there are three survey reports on the incidence of use of cuffed ETTs in young children. In a French survey, Orliaguet et al1 reported that 25% of paediatric anaesthetic respondents used cuffed ETTs ‘routinely’ and 38% used them ‘frequently’. Flynn et al2 reported that only 5% PICU and 7% anaesthetic respondents ‘routinely’ used cuffed ETTs in neonates and infants in Britain. Nishisaki et al3 reported that 90% of intubations across 15 PICUs in North America were with cuffed ETTs.

    In …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the study concept and design. RT was responsible for the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. The manuscript was drafted by RT and critically reviewed by SR and CM. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of data analysis.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval The survey was reviewed and approved by the hospital's Quality Improvement Committee as having met the ‘Australian National Health and Medical Research Council requirements for quality assurance and audit projects’.

    • Data sharing statement Further details can be obtained from the corresponding author on request.

    Linked Articles