Grigoriadis Konstantinos Ε, Angouras Dimitrios C, Flevari Aikaterini, Xathos Theodoros
Department of Physical Therapy, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Department of Cardiac Surgery.
Respir Care. 2015 Dec;60(12):1826-33. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03875. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
Nasotracheal suctioning (NTS) is accomplished by inserting a suction catheter into the trachea through the nasopharynx. It is a useful procedure in critically ill patients whose ability to cough and mobilize secretions is impaired. Ιt was assumed that using a suction catheter with an angular tip would facilitate entry into the trachea. The primary outcome was the success rate and the ease of insertion by using a curved edge catheter (Tiemann type) compared with a conventional suction catheter. The secondary outcome was the monitoring of subject's vital signs during the intervention.
Non-intubated subjects hospitalized in 2 adult ICUs underwent 2 consecutive NTSs each, using either a 14 French curved edge catheter or a 14 French conventional suction catheter, randomly.
Twenty subjects with a mean age of 75.5 y were enrolled for a time period of 5 months. The tracheal access success rate was 19/52 (successful/unsuccessful attempts) using a curved edge catheter (36.5%, 95% CI 23.6-51.0%) compared with 12/130 (9.2%, 95% CI 4.8-15.5%) using a conventional suction catheter. The insertion was 5.6 times more likely to be achieved by using a curved edge catheter (odds ratio 5.66, 95% CI 2.49-12.84, P < .001). The number of attempts required to succeed in the insertion was significantly lower when using a curved edge catheter than when using a conventional suction catheter (for nasopharynx, median [range] of 1 [1] versus 2.5 [8], P = .001; for trachea, median [range] of 2 [9] versus 9 [9], P = .002). The time required for successful insertion into the nasopharynx and trachea was significantly shorter when using a curved edge catheter than when using a conventional suction catheter (for nasopharynx, median [range] of 3 [11] s versus 5.3 [18] s, P = .038; for trachea, median [range] of 6 [27] s versus 20 [25] s, P = .002). The traumatic rate (percentage of catheters with blood present on the tip) was exactly the same for both catheters (30%).
It is more likely that tracheal access will be achieved using a curved edge catheter. A shorter process time and fewer attempts are required for successful NTS using a curved edge catheter, and it seems to be an equally safe procedure. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02261428.).
经鼻气管吸引术(NTS)是通过将吸引导管经鼻咽插入气管来完成的。对于咳嗽和排出分泌物能力受损的重症患者,这是一种有用的操作。曾认为使用带有角状尖端的吸引导管将有助于进入气管。主要结局是与传统吸引导管相比,使用弯曲边缘导管(蒂曼型)的成功率和插入的难易程度。次要结局是干预期间对受试者生命体征的监测。
在2个成人重症监护病房住院的未插管受试者,每人连续接受2次NTS,随机使用14号法国弯曲边缘导管或14号法国传统吸引导管。
20名平均年龄为75.5岁的受试者参与了为期5个月的研究。使用弯曲边缘导管时气管进入成功率为19/52(成功/尝试次数)(36.5%,95%可信区间23.6 - 51.0%),而使用传统吸引导管时为12/130(9.2%,95%可信区间4.8 - 15.5%)。使用弯曲边缘导管实现插入的可能性是使用传统吸引导管的5.6倍(优势比5.66,95%可信区间2.49 - 12.84,P <.001)。使用弯曲边缘导管成功插入所需的尝试次数明显低于使用传统吸引导管(对于鼻咽,中位数[范围]为1[1]次对2.5[8]次,P =.001;对于气管,中位数[范围]为2[9]次对9[9]次,P =.002)。使用弯曲边缘导管成功插入鼻咽和气管所需的时间明显短于使用传统吸引导管(对于鼻咽部,中位数[范围]为3[11]秒对5.3[18]秒,P =.038;对于气管,中位数[范围]为对6[27]秒对20[25]秒,P =.002)。两种导管的创伤率(尖端有血的导管百分比)完全相同(30%)。
使用弯曲边缘导管更有可能实现气管进入。使用弯曲边缘导管成功进行NTS所需的操作时间更短且尝试次数更少,并且似乎是一种同样安全的操作。(ClinicalTrials.gov注册号NCT02261428.)