Derivation and validation of a formula for paediatric tracheal tube size using bootstrap resampling procedure

Abstract

Background and Aims: The accuracy of age-, length- and weight-based formulae to predict optimal size of uncuffed tracheal tubes (TTs) in children varies widely. We determined the accuracy of age, length and weight in predicting the size of TT in Indian children, and derived and validated a formula using the best predictor. Methods: In the derivation phase, 100 children aged 1-8 years undergoing general anaesthesia and tracheal intubation with an uncuffed tube were prospectively studied. The correct size of the TT used was confirmed using the leak test. A bootstrap resampling procedure was used to estimate the accuracy of the predictors (age, weight, or length alone; length and age; length and weight; and length, weight and age). The best predictor was used to derive a formula (Paediatric Tube Size Predictor, PTSP) to calculate the size of TT. The accuracy of PTSP was tested in 150 children of the same age group in the validation phase. Results: Length (L (in meters), R 2 = 0.61) was the best single predictor of the size of TT and was used to derive the PTSP as internal diameter = 3L + 2.5. In the validation phase, the PTSP predicted the size of TT correctly in 75% of children. Re-intubation was associated with a higher incidence of respiratory morbidity than one-time tracheal intubation. Conclusion: Length of the child predicts the size of an uncuffed TT better than age and weight. The PTSP formula based on length correctly predicts the size of uncuffed TT in 75% of children.

Length of the middle finger of hand as a simple and reliable predictor of optimal size of uncuffed endotracheal tube in paediatric patients: An observational study

“…Most of the bedside clinical predictors of size of ETT are based on some gross morphometric variables. [ 1 3 4 5 ] They may be no longer commonly in use among experienced clinicians and the reported predictive performance varies among formula and studies. Most have rather low predictive performance.…”

“…[ 1 ] As a secondary objective, we desired to compare its accuracy with some commonly used length and weight-based formulae. [ 3 4 5 ]…”