Minimal Leak Test vs Manometry for Endotracheal Cuff Pressure Monitoring: A Pilot Study

{"title":"Minimal Leak Test vs Manometry for Endotracheal Cuff Pressure Monitoring: A Pilot Study","authors":"","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ab s t r Ac t Introduction: Optimal cuff pressure for intubated patients is 20–30 cm H2O as routinely measured by manometry. This methodology is associated with elevated costs due to equipment requirements. The objective of this study was to evaluate another methodology, i.e., the minimal leak testing (MLT). Materials and methods: Initial cuff pressures were measured by manometry for all mechanically ventilated patients in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Two critical care physicians separately performed an MLT for each subject and cuff pressure was then remeasured by manometry. The rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was determined. Results: Thirty subjects with 100 patient events were evaluated. The post-MLT measured cuff pressures were highly consistent between physicians, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.770 (p = 0.01). Average initial cuff pressures were not significantly different between manometry and MLT (25 cm H2O vs 14 cm H2O, p = 0.1894). Manometry had a higher incidence of elevated cuff pressures (n = 13/50 vs 2/100, p < 0.0001), while MLT had higher incidences low cuff pressures (n = 72/100 vs 17/50, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the VAP rate (2.8 vs 3.0 per 1,000 ventilator days, p = 0.96). Conclusion: Minimal leak testing is a known method of cuff pressure monitoring that was demonstrated in this study to provide a reproducible technique.","PeriodicalId":74395,"journal":{"name":"Panamerican journal of trauma, critical care & emergency surgery","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Panamerican journal of trauma, critical care & emergency surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ab s t r Ac t Introduction: Optimal cuff pressure for intubated patients is 20–30 cm H2O as routinely measured by manometry. This methodology is associated with elevated costs due to equipment requirements. The objective of this study was to evaluate another methodology, i.e., the minimal leak testing (MLT). Materials and methods: Initial cuff pressures were measured by manometry for all mechanically ventilated patients in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Two critical care physicians separately performed an MLT for each subject and cuff pressure was then remeasured by manometry. The rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was determined. Results: Thirty subjects with 100 patient events were evaluated. The post-MLT measured cuff pressures were highly consistent between physicians, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.770 (p = 0.01). Average initial cuff pressures were not significantly different between manometry and MLT (25 cm H2O vs 14 cm H2O, p = 0.1894). Manometry had a higher incidence of elevated cuff pressures (n = 13/50 vs 2/100, p < 0.0001), while MLT had higher incidences low cuff pressures (n = 72/100 vs 17/50, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the VAP rate (2.8 vs 3.0 per 1,000 ventilator days, p = 0.96). Conclusion: Minimal leak testing is a known method of cuff pressure monitoring that was demonstrated in this study to provide a reproducible technique.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
最小泄漏测试vs压力测量用于气管内袖带压力监测:一项试点研究
简介:插管患者的最佳袖带压力为20-30 cm H2O,常规测压。这种方法与设备需求导致的成本上升有关。本研究的目的是评估另一种方法,即最小泄漏测试(MLT)。材料和方法:对外科重症监护病房(ICU)所有机械通气患者进行初始袖带压力测量。两名重症监护医生分别对每位受试者进行MLT,然后通过测压仪重新测量袖带压力。测定呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率。结果:30名受试者,100例患者事件被评估。mlt后测量的袖带压力在医生之间高度一致,Pearson相关系数为0.770 (p = 0.01)。平均初始袖带压力在测压和MLT之间没有显著差异(25 cm H2O vs 14 cm H2O, p = 0.1894)。测压术的袖带压力升高发生率较高(n = 13/50 vs 2/100, p < 0.0001),而MLT的袖带压力降低发生率较高(n = 72/100 vs 17/50, p < 0.0001)。VAP率无差异(2.8 vs 3.0 / 1000呼吸机日,p = 0.96)。结论:最小泄漏测试是一种已知的袖带压力监测方法,在本研究中证明了它提供了一种可重复的技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Choledocholithiasis: Easy and Early Diagnosis Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care & Emergency Surgery Patterns of Traumatic Injury Volume during First Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Patient with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury and Malaria in a Middle Eastern Country Successful Embolectomy of over 10 cm Clot in Acute Internal Carotid Artery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1