STUDY OBJECTIVE: Endotracheal suctioning in intubated patients is routinely applied in most ICUs but may have negative side effects. We hypothesised that on-demand minimally invasive suctioning would have fewer side effects than routine deep endotracheal suctioning, and would be comparable in duration of intubation, length of stay in the ICU, and ICU mortality.DESIGN: Randomised prospective clinical trial.SETTING: In two ICUs at University Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands.PATIENTS: Three hundred and eighty-three patients requiring endotracheal intubation for more than 24 h.INTERVENTIONS: Routine endotracheal suctioning (n=197) using a 49-cm suction catheter was compared with on-demand minimally invasive airway suctioning (n=186) using a suction catheter only 29 cm long.MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: No differences were found between the routine endotracheal suctioning group and the minimally invasive airway suctioning group in duration of intubation [median (range) 4 (1-75) versus 5 (1-101) days], ICU-stay [median (range) 8 (1-133) versus 7 (1-221) days], ICU mortality (15% versus 17%), and incidence of pulmonary infections (14% versus 13%). Suction-related adverse events occurred more frequently with RES interventions than with MIAS interventions; decreased saturation: 2.7% versus 2.0% (P=0.010); increased systolic blood pressure 24.5% versus 16.8% (P<0.001); increased pulse pressure rate 1.4% versus 0.9% (P=0.007); blood in mucus 3.3% versus 0.9% (P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that minimally invasive airway suctioning in intubated ICU-patients had fewer side effects than routine deep endotracheal suctioning, without being inferior in terms of duration on intubation, length of stay, and mortality.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND:Endotracheal suctioning causes discomfort, is associated with adverse effects, and is resource-demanding. An artificial secretion removal method, known as an automated cough, has been developed, which applies rapid, automated deflation, and inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff during the inspiratory phase of mechanical ventilation. This method has been evaluated in the hands of researchers but not when used by attending nurses. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of the method over the course of patient management as part of routine care.METHODS:This prospective, longitudinal, interventional study recruited 28 subjects who were intubated and mechanically ventilated. For a maximum of 7 d and on clinical need for endotracheal suctioning, the automatic cough procedure was applied. The subjects were placed in a pressure-regulated ventilation mode with elevated inspiratory pressure, and automated cuff deflation and inflation were performed 3 times, with this repeated if deemed necessary. Success was determined by resolution of the clinical need for suctioning as determined by the attending nurse. Adverse effects were recorded.RESULTS:A total of 84 procedures were performed. In 54% of the subjects, the artificial cough procedure was successful on > 70% of occasions, with 56% of all procedures considered successful. Ninety percent of all the procedures were performed in subjects who were spontaneously breathing and on pressure-support ventilation with peak inspiratory pressures of 20 cm H2O. Rates of adverse events were similar to those seen in the application of endotracheal suctioning.CONCLUSIONS:This study solely evaluated the efficacy of an automated artificial cough procedure, which illustrated the potential for reducing the need for endotracheal suctioning when applied by attending nurses in routine care.
DOCUMENT
Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non-invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning.
DOCUMENT
