Minerva anestesiologica · 2013
Polyurethane does not protect better than polyvinyl cuffed tracheal tubes from microaspirations.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bulpa P, Evrard P, Bouhon S, Schryvers F, Jamart J, Michaux I, Dive A, Vander Borght T, Krug B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients are prone to develop ventilator associated pneumonia due to microaspirations of subglottic secretions around the endotracheal tube cuff (usually constructed of polyvinyl material). A novel polyurethane cuff has been designed to minimize these leakages. The aim of the study was to compare the tracheal sealing capacities between the two tubes.
METHODS: Twenty-nine consecutive patients from whom tracheal intubation was necessary as part of their care were randomized to receive either a polyvinyl HI-LO Evac® or a polyurethane SEALGUARD Evac® endotracheal tube. Patients requiring emergency intubation, with unstable hemodynamics or history of tracheal/laryngeal disease were excluded. For the entire study, cuff pressure was set at 30 cmH2O, and ventilator parameters were adjusted for a plateau pressure ≤30 cmH2O; Patients were fasting, placed in a strict 45° position during 12 hours and sedated if needed. After injection of 74 MBq 99mTc-DTPA diluted in 5 mL 0.9% NaCl just above the cuff, tracheal radioactivity was assessed sequentially (hourly from T0 to T6, then T8 and T12 hours) using a scintillation camera.
RESULTS: Sixteen polyurethane and 13 polyvinyl tubes were compared. Leakages were observed in 11/29 patients (38%) (5/16 polyurethane and 6/13 polyvinyl tubes [P=NS]). Leakages occurred more often in female (7/8) than in male patients (4/21) (P<0.001). Microaspirations were decreased with larger tubes (size 9 vs. ≤8.5: 24% vs. 75%; P=0.01), whatever the cuff membrane.
CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that both tubes are poorly effective in preventing microaspirations.
METHODS: Twenty-nine consecutive patients from whom tracheal intubation was necessary as part of their care were randomized to receive either a polyvinyl HI-LO Evac® or a polyurethane SEALGUARD Evac® endotracheal tube. Patients requiring emergency intubation, with unstable hemodynamics or history of tracheal/laryngeal disease were excluded. For the entire study, cuff pressure was set at 30 cmH2O, and ventilator parameters were adjusted for a plateau pressure ≤30 cmH2O; Patients were fasting, placed in a strict 45° position during 12 hours and sedated if needed. After injection of 74 MBq 99mTc-DTPA diluted in 5 mL 0.9% NaCl just above the cuff, tracheal radioactivity was assessed sequentially (hourly from T0 to T6, then T8 and T12 hours) using a scintillation camera.
RESULTS: Sixteen polyurethane and 13 polyvinyl tubes were compared. Leakages were observed in 11/29 patients (38%) (5/16 polyurethane and 6/13 polyvinyl tubes [P=NS]). Leakages occurred more often in female (7/8) than in male patients (4/21) (P<0.001). Microaspirations were decreased with larger tubes (size 9 vs. ≤8.5: 24% vs. 75%; P=0.01), whatever the cuff membrane.
CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that both tubes are poorly effective in preventing microaspirations.