A PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ADVERSE EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE USE IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS AT A TERTIARY CARE TEACHING HOSPITAL

Authors

  • MALDEV RANA Department of Pharmacology, Pacific Institute of Medical Sciences, Sai Tirupati University, Umarda, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3807-8318
  • MEGHA H. SHAH Department of Pharmacology, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
  • SANDIP JADAV Department of Pharmacology, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
  • CHETNA K. DESAI Department of Pharmacology, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ijpps.2026v18i6.58958

Keywords:

Medical device adverse event, Endotracheal tube, Pediatric patients, Oropharyngeal injury, Laryngeal edema

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate adverse events associated with endotracheal tube use in pediatric patients at a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Methods: This prospective observational study conducted over a three-month period

was conducted in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Pediatric patients requiring endotracheal intubation were enrolled according to predefined selection criteria. Each patient was monitored for up to 72 hours (24, 48, and 72 hours) following intubation. Information regarding medical device–associated adverse events (MDAEs) was systematically recorded. Causality assessment of reported events was performed using the World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) causality assessment scale.

Results: A total of 68 patients were screened, with a mean age of 4.56 ± 2.66 years. The overall incidence of endotracheal tube–related MDAEs was 11.7% (n=8). Among the reported adverse events, oropharyngeal injury was the most frequent (25%, n=2). Other observed events included tube blockage, aspiration, laryngeal trauma, laryngeal edema, vocal cord injury, and tube malposition (each 12.5%, n=1), presented concisely without redundancy.

Conclusion: Oropharyngeal injury was the most commonly observed adverse event associated with endotracheal tube use in pediatric patients. Early detection, careful monitoring, and systematic reporting of device-related adverse events are essential to improve patient safety. Further studies are required to explore potential risk factors, including the role of underlying clinical conditions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Ravichandran R, Balakrishnan RP, Batcha JSD, Ravi AL, Sam NC. Medical device: a complete overview. Int J Clin Trials 2020;7(4):285-93. DOI: 10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20204487

2. Thacharodi A, Singh P, Meenatchi R, Tawfeeq Ahmed ZH, Kumar RRS, V N, et al. Revolutionizing healthcare and medicine: The impact of modern technologies for a healthier future-A comprehensive review. Health Care Sci. 2024;3(5):329-349. doi: 10.1002/hcs2.115.

3. Huusko J, Kinnunen UM, Saranto K. Medical device regulation (MDR) in health technology enterprises - perspectives of managers and regulatory professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):310. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09316-8.

4. Jafleh EA, Alnaqbi FA, Almaeeni HA, Faqeeh S, Alzaabi MA, Al Zaman K. The Role of Wearable Devices in Chronic Disease Monitoring and Patient Care: A Comprehensive Review. Cureus. 2024;16(9):e68921. doi: 10.7759/cureus.68921.

5. Amrani G, Gefen A. Which endotracheal tube location minimises the device-related pressure ulcer risk: The centre or a corner of the mouth? Int Wound J. 2020;17(2):268-276. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13267.

6. Modi YC, Menia N, Jhawer A. Effect of Bevel Direction of the Endotracheal Tube on the Proportion of Cases Developing Epistaxis During Nasotracheal Intubation-A Randomized Controlled Interventional Study. Int J Curr Pharm Sci. 2024;16(4):124-8. Doi: 10.22159/ijcpr.2024v16i4.5028

7. Rampally S, Sowmya K, Bhargavi S, Pravalika R, Jaju S. Effects of Lignocaine Nebulization Versus Dexmedetomidine Nebulization in Blunting Hemodynamic Response in Patients Undergoing Nasotracheal Intubation in Head and Neck Surgeries. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2026;19(2):196-200. Doi: 10.22159/ajpcr.2026v19i2.57228

8. Kasa S, Singh M, Rampally S, Chowdary PS, Sachidanand1 R, Mantri A, et al. Validation of a novel syringe based monitor (AG CUFFILL) for measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure in adult patients. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2025;12(4):710-714. Doi: 10.18231/j.ijca.13430.1761639831

9. Veeramani S, Murugesh SR, A M G, Palaksha S. Assessment of adverse events associated with medical devices among respiratory disorder patients at a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Res. 2025;161(6):672-678. doi: 10.25259/IJMR_1755_2024.

10. Amoore JN. A Structured Approach for Investigating the Causes of Medical Device Adverse Events. J Med Eng. 2014;2014:314138. doi: 10.1155/2014/314138.

11. Aaliya Parvin MJ, Sudheer Kumar T, Kamaraj R. A Comprehensive Analysis of Class I Medical Device Recalls: Unveiling Patterns, Causes and Global Impacts. Cureus. 2024;16(8):e67542. doi: 10.7759/cureus.67542.

12. Porte PJ, Smits M, Verweij LM, de Bruijne MC, van der Vleuten CPM, Wagner C. The Incidence and Nature of Adverse Medical Device Events in Dutch Hospitals: A Retrospective Patient Record Review Study. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e1719-e1725. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000620. P

13. Meher BR. Materiovigilance: An Indian perspective. Perspect Clin Res. 2018;9(4):175-178. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_26_18.

14. Gupta SK. Medical device regulations: A current perspective. J Young Pharm. 2015;8(1):6–11. doi:10.5530/jyp.2016.1.3

15. Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission. Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission. Ghaziabad: Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission; 2022 [assessed 2025 Aug 26]. Available from: https://www.ipc.gov.in/

16. World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Uppsala: World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre; 2005 [assessed 2025 Aug 26]. Available from: https://www.who-umc.org/

17. Saifuddin PK, Prakash A, Samujh R, Gupta SK, Suri V, Kumar RM, et al. Pattern of Medical Device Adverse Events in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Northern India: An Ambispective Study. J Assoc Physicians India. 2024;72(6):62-68. doi: 10.59556/japi.72.0424.

18. Black AE, Hatch DJ, Nauth-Misir N. Complications of nasotracheal intubation in neonates, infants and children: a review of 4 years' experience in a children's hospital. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65(4):461-7. doi: 10.1093/bja/65.4.461.

19. Swain SK, Behera IC. Pediatric tracheostomy: A 10-year experience at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Eastern India. Indian J Health Sci Biomed Res (KLEU). 2022;15(3):224–229. doi: 10.4103/kleuhsj.kleuhsj_130_22.

Published

25-04-2026

How to Cite

RANA, MALDEV, et al. “A PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ADVERSE EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE USE IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS AT A TERTIARY CARE TEACHING HOSPITAL”. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 18, no. 6, Apr. 2026, doi:10.22159/ijpps.2026v18i6.58958.

Issue

Section

Original Article(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.