Original Article

Efficacy of closed endotracheal suctioning in critically ill patients: A clinical trial of comparing two levels of negative suctioning pressure

Abstract

Background & Aim: Although trachea-bronchial suctioning (TBS) is one of the important nursing procedures in intensive care units (ICU), it may be associated with some complications. Using closed system suctioning (CSS) is one of the ways to decrease the rate of complications due to continued ventilation and oxygenation at the time of suctioning. However, CSS' secretion removal is not efficient enough. Higher values of suction pressure have been recommended to enhance the efficacy of CSS. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two levels of negative suction pressure in secretion removal of CSS used for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients.
Materials & Methods: Fifty eligible adult MV patients (twenty in each group) with Random allocation participated in this clinical trial study with cross-over design. Each patient was suctioned using CSS, connected to a central suction device, with 100 and 200 mmHg pressures with a two-hour interval. Efficacy of suctioning was measured by the absence of secretion flow at the end of suctioning. Volume of the secretions was measured and compared in each suctioning. Statistical analyses were done using Minitab and SPSS software considering the significance level of 0.05.
Results: CSS using 200 mmHg resulted in an efficacy of 96% for removing secretions, compared to 34% for 100 mmHg (P = <0.0001). Suctioning volume was increased significantly higher with 200 mmHg suction pressure compared to values with 100 mmHg (1.72 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4; 2.0]; P<0.0001).
Conclusion: Application of CSS with Suctioning pressure 200 mmHg is recommended for trachea-bronchial suctioning in mechanically ventilated patients, because nearly complete removal of respiratory suctioning in most subjects.

1. Sole ML, Bennett M, Ashworth S. Clinical Indicators for Endotracheal Suctioning in Adult Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation. American Journal of Critical Care. 2015;24(4):318-24.
2. Potter PA, Perry AG, Stockert P, Hall A. Fundamentals of nursing. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.
3. Mohammadpour A, Amini S, Shakeri MT, Mirzaei S. Comparing the effect of open and closed endotracheal suctioning on pain and oxygenation in post CABG patients under mechanical ventilation. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. 2015;20(2):195-9.
4. Farsi Z, Kalroozi F, Nezamzadeh M, et al. Effect of clinical audit process on level of endotracheal suctioning skill in nurses and anesthesia technicians working in intensive care units. Nurs Pract Today. 2015; 2(2): 76-83.
5. Maggiore S, Volpe C. Endotracheal suctioning in hypoxemic patients. Réanimation. 2011;20(1):12-8.
6. Yazdannik AR, Haghighat S, Saghaei M, Eghbali M. Comparing two levels of closed system suction pressure in ICU patients: Evaluating the relative safety of higher values of suction pressure. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. 2013;18(2):117-22.
7. Haghighat S, Yazdannik A. The practice of intensive care nurses using the closed suctioning system: An observational study. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery reseach. 2015;20(5):619-25.
8. Davies K, Monterosso L, Leslie G. Determining standard criteria for endotracheal suctioning in the paediatric intensive care patient: an exploratory study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. 2011;27(2):85-93.
9. Evans J, Syddall S, Butt W, Kinney S. Comparison of open and closed suction on safety, efficacy and nursing time in a paediatric intensive care unit. Australian Critical Care. 2014;27(2):70-4.
10. Afshari A, Safari M, Oshvandi K, Soltanian AR. The effect of the open and closed system suctions on cardiopulmonary parameters: time and costs in patients under mechanical ventilation. Nursing and midwifery studies. 2014;3(2):e14097.1-6.
11. Lippincott. Lippincott's Nursing Procedures. Ed t, editor.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2015.
12. Innovation NAfC. Suctioning an Adult ICU patient with an artificial airway. In: 2067 CN, editor. Australia. Albert Avenue; 2014. p. 40.
13. Lasocki S, Lu Q, Sartorius A, Fouillat D, Remerand F, Rouby J-J. Open and Closed-circuit Endotracheal Suctioning in Acute Lung InjuryEfficiency and Effects on Gas Exchange. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2006;104(1):39-47.
14. Care AARC. AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated patients with artificial airways 2010. Respiratory care. 2010;55(6):758-64.
15. Hlinková E, Nemcová J, Bielená K. Closed Versus Open Suction System of The Airways in The Prevention of Infection in Ventilated Patiients.Cent Eur J Nurs Midw. 2014;5:63-71.
16. Özden D, Görgülü RS. Effects of open and closed suction systems on the haemodynamic parameters in cardiac surgery patients. Nursing in critical care. 2015;20(3):118-25.
17. Khamis GM, Waziry OG, Badr-El-Din A-HA, El-Sayed MM. Effect of Closed Versus Open Suction System on Cardiopulmonary Parameters of Ventilated Neonates. J Am Sci. 2011;7(4):525-34.
18. Copnell B, Tingay DG, Kiraly NJ, Sourial M, Gordon MJ, Mills JF, et al. A comparison of the effectiveness of open and closed endotracheal suction. Intensive care medicine. 2007;33(9):1655-62.
19. Lindgren S, Almgren B, Högman M, Lethvall S, Houltz E, Lundin S, et al. Effectiveness and side effects of closed and open suctioning: an experimental evaluation. Intensive care medicine. 2004;30(8):1630-7.
20. Paula LCSd, Ceccon MEJ. Randomized, comparative analysis between two tracheal suction systems in newborn. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2010;56(1):434-9.
21. Urden LD, Stacy KM, Lough ME. Critical Care Nursing, Diagnosis and Management, 7: Critical Care Nursing. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
22. David D, Samuel P, David T, Keshava SN, Irodi A, Peter JV. An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suctioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care patients. Journal of critical care. 2011;26(5):482-8.
23. oxygen Therapy-Clinical Best Practice guidline [internet]. College of Respiraatory Therapist of Ontarion. 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 2103, Toronto, Ontario.2013 – [cited 2013 Sep] Available from:http://www.crto.on.ca/pdf/PPG/Oxygen_Therapy_CBPG.pdf
24. Saghaei M, Saghaei S. Implementation of an open-source customizable minimization program for allocation of patients to parallel groups in clinical trials. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering. 2011;4(11):734-4.
Files
IssueVol 6 No 2 (2019): Spring QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/npt.v6i2.910
Keywords
suction intensive care unit ventilation secretions pressure
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Yazdannik A, Saghaei M, Haghighat S, Eghbali-babadi M. Efficacy of closed endotracheal suctioning in critically ill patients: A clinical trial of comparing two levels of negative suctioning pressure. NPT. 2019;6(2):63-70.