{"title":"Endotracheal Tube Cuff Inflation Methods in School-Age Children: Flow-Volume Loop-Guided Versus Stethoscope-Guided.","authors":"Witchaya Supaopaspan, Sawapat Phongdara, Amorn Vijitpavan","doi":"10.1089/respcare.12076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In pediatric patients, the intracuff pressure of endotracheal tubes should be as low as possible to prevent injury to the tracheal mucosal wall. The conventional stethoscope-guided technique relies solely on the operator's sensitivity of audible detection, which may lead to increased intracuff pressure. This study was conducted to compare the flow-volume loop guided technique for endotracheal tube cuff inflation with the stethoscope-guided technique and to determine whether the flow-volume loop guided technique results in lower and more consistent intracuff pressure. <b>Methods:</b> The participants were randomized to undergo either the flow-volume loop guided or the stethoscope-guided cuff inflation technique. In the flow-volume loop guided group, the cuff was inflated until the flow-volume loop was completely sealed. In the stethoscope-guided group, the cuff was inflated until the leakage was not audible. Cuff inflation was performed twice with incremental volumes of 0.5 mL and 0.2 mL to determine the consistency of the methods. The primary outcome was the intracuff pressure, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of postextubation complications. <b>Results:</b> Eighty participants (4 to 12 years old) were included in this study. The use of the flow-volume loop guided technique was associated with a lower cuff pressure versus use of the stethoscope-guided technique when inflated at the 0.5-mL increment [14 (6-18) cm H<sub>2</sub>O vs 19 (9-24) cm H<sub>2</sub>O; <i>P</i> < .001] and at the 0.2-mL increment [14 (6-18) cm H<sub>2</sub>O vs 18 (9-24) cm H<sub>2</sub>O; <i>P</i> < .001], with better consistency between the measured cuff pressures (z = -2.299; <i>P</i> = .02). The presence of postextubation complications (6/80) was not significantly different between the 2 groups but was associated with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (<i>P</i> < .001). <b>Conclusions:</b> The flow-volume loop guided technique for endotracheal tube cuff inflation is a more objective technique that effectively seals the airway with the lower cuff pressure to allow for mechanical ventilation in pediatric subjects during anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":"70 2","pages":"176-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/respcare.12076","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In pediatric patients, the intracuff pressure of endotracheal tubes should be as low as possible to prevent injury to the tracheal mucosal wall. The conventional stethoscope-guided technique relies solely on the operator's sensitivity of audible detection, which may lead to increased intracuff pressure. This study was conducted to compare the flow-volume loop guided technique for endotracheal tube cuff inflation with the stethoscope-guided technique and to determine whether the flow-volume loop guided technique results in lower and more consistent intracuff pressure. Methods: The participants were randomized to undergo either the flow-volume loop guided or the stethoscope-guided cuff inflation technique. In the flow-volume loop guided group, the cuff was inflated until the flow-volume loop was completely sealed. In the stethoscope-guided group, the cuff was inflated until the leakage was not audible. Cuff inflation was performed twice with incremental volumes of 0.5 mL and 0.2 mL to determine the consistency of the methods. The primary outcome was the intracuff pressure, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of postextubation complications. Results: Eighty participants (4 to 12 years old) were included in this study. The use of the flow-volume loop guided technique was associated with a lower cuff pressure versus use of the stethoscope-guided technique when inflated at the 0.5-mL increment [14 (6-18) cm H2O vs 19 (9-24) cm H2O; P < .001] and at the 0.2-mL increment [14 (6-18) cm H2O vs 18 (9-24) cm H2O; P < .001], with better consistency between the measured cuff pressures (z = -2.299; P = .02). The presence of postextubation complications (6/80) was not significantly different between the 2 groups but was associated with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (P < .001). Conclusions: The flow-volume loop guided technique for endotracheal tube cuff inflation is a more objective technique that effectively seals the airway with the lower cuff pressure to allow for mechanical ventilation in pediatric subjects during anesthesia.
背景:在儿科患者中,气管内插管应尽可能降低管内压力,以防止气管粘膜壁损伤。传统的听诊器引导技术完全依赖于操作员对声音检测的灵敏度,这可能导致颅内压力增加。本研究旨在比较流量-容量环路引导技术与听诊器引导技术对气管内管袖口充气的影响,并确定流量-容量环路引导技术是否能获得更低且更一致的口内压力。方法:参与者随机接受流量-容量环引导或听诊器引导袖带充气技术。在流量-体积环引导组中,对袖带进行充气,直到流量-体积环完全密封。在听诊器引导组,对袖带进行充气,直到听不到渗漏。以0.5 mL和0.2 mL的增量量进行两次袖口充气,以确定方法的一致性。主要结果是颅内压力,次要结果是拔管后并发症的发生率。结果:80名参与者(4 ~ 12岁)被纳入本研究。与听诊器引导技术相比,当充气0.5 ml时,使用流量-容量环引导技术与较低的袖带压力相关[14 (6-18)cm H2O vs 19 (9-24) cm H2O;p2o vs 18 (9-24) cm H2O;p = .02)。拔管后并发症的发生率(6/80)在两组之间无显著差异,但与美国麻醉医师协会的身体状况有关(P结论:气管内管袖口充气的流量-容量环引导技术是一种更客观的技术,可以有效地以较低的袖口压力密封气道,使儿科受试者在麻醉期间进行机械通气。
期刊介绍:
RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.