Suctioning via the tube during endotracheal intubation in a model of severe upper airway haemorrhage: is there an advantage vs. suctioning with a separate catheter?

Abstract Introduction In a model of severe simulated upper airway haemorrhage, we compared two techniques of performing endotracheal intubation: (1) suctioning via the endotracheal tube during laryngoscopy with subsequently advancing the endotracheal tube, and (2) the standard intubation strategy with performing laryngoscopy, and performing suction with subsequently advancing the endotracheal tube. Methods Forty-one emergency medical technicians intubated the trachea of a manikin with severe simulated airway haemorrhage using each technique in random order. Results There was no significant difference in the number of oesophageal intubations between suctioning via the tube and the standard intubation strategy [8/41 (20%) vs. 6/41 (15%); P  = 0.688], but suctioning via the endotracheal tube needed significantly more time [median (IQR, CI 95%): 42 (20, 39–60) vs. 33 (15, 35–48) s; P  = 0.015]. Conclusions Suctioning via the endotracheal tube showed no benefit regarding the number of oesophageal intubations and needed more time when compared to the standard intubation strategy.