开放式和封闭式气管吸吸系统对呼吸机相关性肺炎及死亡率的影响比较

Dilek Bulut, Merve Sefa Sayar
{"title":"开放式和封闭式气管吸吸系统对呼吸机相关性肺炎及死亡率的影响比较","authors":"Dilek Bulut, Merve Sefa Sayar","doi":"10.9734/ajrid/2023/v14i3296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: Nosocomial pneumonia is a prevalent complication in patients admitted to intensive care units. Endotracheal suction (ES) is used to clean the airways of secretions in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV). The objective of this study was to compare the effects of an open endotracheal suction system (OESS) versus a closed endotracheal suction system (CESS) on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).
 Study Design: Retrospective examination of hospital records.
 Place and Duration of Study: Reanimation Intensive Care Unit, Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey, between January 2018 and December 2019.
 Methodology: Age, gender, and length of stay in the intensive care unit and under mechanical ventilation (MV), mortality and isolated microorganism status of 73 (35.6%) patients with VAP were analyzed retrospectively. These features were compared according to the ES type applied. Sample: The study was conducted among 205 patients who were connected to a mechanical ventilator for more than 48 h in the reanimation intensive care unit (RICU) of a tertiary care hospital.
 Results: There was no difference between OESS and CESS groups in terms of mortality rates, length of stay in the RICU, and duration of MV. There was a significant difference in terms of incidence of VAP between the OESS group and the CESS group (41.8% and 29%, respectively; P = .045) Acinetobacter baumanii was the most frequently isolated microorganism in both groups.
 Conclusion: CESS treatment was associated with a lower incidence of VAP in patients of the RICU.","PeriodicalId":166387,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Research in Infectious Diseases","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Effects of Open and Closed Endotracheal Suction Systems on Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Mortality\",\"authors\":\"Dilek Bulut, Merve Sefa Sayar\",\"doi\":\"10.9734/ajrid/2023/v14i3296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: Nosocomial pneumonia is a prevalent complication in patients admitted to intensive care units. Endotracheal suction (ES) is used to clean the airways of secretions in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV). The objective of this study was to compare the effects of an open endotracheal suction system (OESS) versus a closed endotracheal suction system (CESS) on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).
 Study Design: Retrospective examination of hospital records.
 Place and Duration of Study: Reanimation Intensive Care Unit, Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey, between January 2018 and December 2019.
 Methodology: Age, gender, and length of stay in the intensive care unit and under mechanical ventilation (MV), mortality and isolated microorganism status of 73 (35.6%) patients with VAP were analyzed retrospectively. These features were compared according to the ES type applied. Sample: The study was conducted among 205 patients who were connected to a mechanical ventilator for more than 48 h in the reanimation intensive care unit (RICU) of a tertiary care hospital.
 Results: There was no difference between OESS and CESS groups in terms of mortality rates, length of stay in the RICU, and duration of MV. There was a significant difference in terms of incidence of VAP between the OESS group and the CESS group (41.8% and 29%, respectively; P = .045) Acinetobacter baumanii was the most frequently isolated microorganism in both groups.
 Conclusion: CESS treatment was associated with a lower incidence of VAP in patients of the RICU.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Research in Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\"172 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Research in Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrid/2023/v14i3296\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Research in Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrid/2023/v14i3296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:院内肺炎是重症监护病房住院患者的常见并发症。气管内吸痰(ES)用于清除机械通气(MV)患者气道中的分泌物。本研究的目的是比较开放式气管内吸引系统(OESS)与封闭式气管内吸引系统(CESS)对呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发病率的影响。研究设计:回顾性检查医院记录。 学习地点和时间:2018年1月至2019年12月期间,土耳其Van Van培训和研究医院的康复重症监护室。 方法:回顾性分析73例(35.6%)VAP患者的年龄、性别、重症监护病房和机械通气(MV)住院时间、死亡率和分离微生物情况。根据应用的ES类型对这些特征进行比较。样本:本研究是在一家三级医院的复苏重症监护病房(RICU)中使用机械呼吸机超过48小时的205例患者中进行的。结果:OESS组和CESS组在死亡率、RICU住院时间和MV持续时间方面没有差异。OESS组与CESS组VAP发生率差异有统计学意义(分别为41.8%和29%);P = 0.045)鲍曼不动杆菌是两组中最常见的分离微生物。 结论:CESS治疗与RICU患者较低的VAP发生率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of the Effects of Open and Closed Endotracheal Suction Systems on Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Mortality
Aims: Nosocomial pneumonia is a prevalent complication in patients admitted to intensive care units. Endotracheal suction (ES) is used to clean the airways of secretions in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV). The objective of this study was to compare the effects of an open endotracheal suction system (OESS) versus a closed endotracheal suction system (CESS) on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Study Design: Retrospective examination of hospital records. Place and Duration of Study: Reanimation Intensive Care Unit, Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey, between January 2018 and December 2019. Methodology: Age, gender, and length of stay in the intensive care unit and under mechanical ventilation (MV), mortality and isolated microorganism status of 73 (35.6%) patients with VAP were analyzed retrospectively. These features were compared according to the ES type applied. Sample: The study was conducted among 205 patients who were connected to a mechanical ventilator for more than 48 h in the reanimation intensive care unit (RICU) of a tertiary care hospital. Results: There was no difference between OESS and CESS groups in terms of mortality rates, length of stay in the RICU, and duration of MV. There was a significant difference in terms of incidence of VAP between the OESS group and the CESS group (41.8% and 29%, respectively; P = .045) Acinetobacter baumanii was the most frequently isolated microorganism in both groups. Conclusion: CESS treatment was associated with a lower incidence of VAP in patients of the RICU.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case Report on Peritoneal Tuberculosis in an Immunocompromised Patient Self Medication Against COVID19 Infection: Assessment of Practices among Residents in a Semi Urban Nigerian Community Knowledge of Associated Risk Factors of Chronic Kidney Disease among Secondary School Teachers in Anambra State Nigeria Nursing Interventions to Prevent Pressure Ulcers in Critically Ill Patients: A Review of the Evidence Assessment of Cefuroxime and Cefuroxime Clavulanic Acid Prescription Practices for Infection Management in Routine Indian Healthcare Settings: Expert Insights
×
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