Safety of primary nasotracheal intubation in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)
Laurence Ducharme-Crevier,Jamie Furlong-Dillard,Philipp Jung,Fabrizio Chiusolo,Matthew P Malone,Shashikanth Ambati,Simon J Parsons,Conrad Krawiec,Awni Al-Subu,Lee A Polikoff,Natalie Napolitano,Keiko M Tarquinio,Asha Shenoi,Andrea Talukdar,Palen P Mallory,John S Giuliano Jr,Ryan K Breuer,Krista Kierys,Serena P Kelly,Makoto Motomura,Ron C Sanders Jr,Ashley Freeman,Yuki Nagai,Lily B Glater-Welt,Joseph Wilson,Mervin Loi,Michelle Adu-Darko,Justine Shults,Vinay Nadkarni,Guillaume Emeriaud,Akira Nishisaki,National Emergency Airway Registry for Children (NEAR4KIDS), Pediatric Acute Lung Injury, Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44253-024-00035-4
Abstract:Background: Nasal tracheal intubation (TI) represents a minority of all TI in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The risks and benefits of nasal TI are not well quantified. As such, safety and descriptive data regarding this practice are warranted. Methods: We evaluated the association between TI route and safety outcomes in a prospectively collected quality improvement database (National Emergency Airway Registry for Children: NEAR4KIDS) from 2013 to 2020. The primary outcome was severe desaturation (SpO2 > 20% from baseline) and/or severe adverse TI-associated events (TIAEs), using NEAR4KIDS definitions. To balance patient, provider, and practice covariates, we utilized propensity score (PS) matching to compare the outcomes of nasal vs. oral TI. Results: A total of 22,741 TIs [nasal 870 (3.8%), oral 21,871 (96.2%)] were reported from 60 PICUs. Infants were represented in higher proportion in the nasal TI than the oral TI (75.9%, vs 46.2%), as well as children with cardiac conditions (46.9% vs. 14.4%), both p < 0.001. Severe desaturation or severe TIAE occurred in 23.7% of nasal and 22.5% of oral TI (non-adjusted p = 0.408). With PS matching, the prevalence of severe desaturation and or severe adverse TIAEs was 23.6% of nasal vs. 19.8% of oral TI (absolute difference 3.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.07, 7.7%), p = 0.055. First attempt success rate was 72.1% of nasal TI versus 69.2% of oral TI, p = 0.072. With PS matching, the success rate was not different between two groups (nasal 72.2% vs. oral 71.5%, p = 0.759). Conclusion: In this large international prospective cohort study, the risk of severe peri-intubation complications was not significantly higher. Nasal TI is used in a minority of TI in PICUs, with substantial differences in patient, provider, and practice compared to oral TI.A prospective multicenter trial may be warranted to address the potential selection bias and to confirm the safety of nasal TI.