Abstract
© 2015, Nseir et al. Background: Cuff pressure (P<inf>cuff</inf>) control is mandatory to avoid leakage of oral secretions passing the tracheal tube and tracheal ischemia. The aim of the present trial was to determine the efficacy of a mechanical device (PressureEasy®) in the continuous control of P<inf>cuff</inf> in patients intubated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC)-cuffed tracheal tubes, compared with routine care using a manometer. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, cross-over study. All patients requiring intubation with a predicted duration of mechanical ventilation ≥48 h were eligible. Eighteen patients randomly received continuous control of P<inf>cuff</inf> with PressureEasy® device for 24 h, followed by discontinuous control (every 4 h) with a manual manometer for 24 h, or vice versa. P<inf>cuff</inf> and airway pressure were continuously recorded. P<inf>cuff</inf> target was 25 cmH<inf>2</inf>O during the two periods. Results: The percentage of time spent with P<inf>cuff</inf> 20–30 cmH<inf>2</inf>O (median (IQR) 34 % (17–57) versus 50 % (35–64), p = 0.184) and the percentage of time spent with P<inf>cuff</inf> <20 cmH<inf>2</inf>O (23 % (5–63) versus 43 % (16–60), p = 0.5) were similar during continuous control of P<inf>cuff</inf> and routine care, respectively. However, the percentage of time spent with P<inf>cuff</inf> >30 cmH<inf>2</inf>O was significantly higher during continuous control compared with routine care of tracheal cuff (26 % (14–39) versus 7 % (1–18), p = 0.002). No significant difference was found in P<inf>cuff</inf> (25 (18–28) versus 21 (18–26), p = 0.17), mean airway pressure (14 (10–17) versus 14 (11–16), p = 0.679), or coefficient of variation of P<inf>cuff</inf> (19 % (11–26) versus 20 % (11–25), p = 0.679) during continuous control compared with routine care of tracheal cuff, respectively. Conclusions: PressureEasy® did not demonstrate a better control of P<inf>cuff</inf> between 20 and 30 cmH<inf>2</inf>O, compared with routine care using a manometer. Moreover, the device use resulted in significantly higher time spent with overinflation of tracheal cuff, which might increase the risk for tracheal ischemic lesions. Trial registration: Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02109003
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 12 |
Journal | Annals of intensive care |
Volume | 5 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 11 Dec 2015 |
Keywords
- Control
- Cuff pressure
- Mechanical ventilation
- Microaspiration
- Tracheal ischemia