Physiologic Effects of Nasal Aspiration and Nasopharyngeal Suctioning on Infants With Viral Bronchiolitis.

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence supporting an optimum method for removing mucus from the airways of hospitalized infants with bronchiolitis. This study was designed to evaluate short-term physiologic effects between nasal aspiration and nasopharyngeal suctioning in infants.

METHODS

Sixteen infants requiring hospitalization for supportive management of bronchiolitis were instrumented with transcutaneously measured partial pressure of carbon dioxide ([Formula: see text]) and [Formula: see text] monitoring. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) was used to estimate changes in inspiratory and end-expiratory lung volume loss and recovery. Subjects were suctioned with both nasal aspiration and nasopharyngeal suctioning methods in a randomized order (8 received nasal aspiration followed by nasopharyngeal suctioning, and 8 received nasophayrgeal suctioning followed by nasal aspiration). Noninvasive gas exchange and EIT measurements were obtained at baseline (pre-suction) and at 10, 20, and 30 min following each suctioning intervention. Sputum mass was obtained following suctioning, and clinical respiratory severity scores, before and after suctioning, were computed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in inspiratory EIT ( = .93), change in end-expiratory lung impedance (ΔEELI; = .53), [Formula: see text] ( = .41), [Formula: see text] ( = .88), heart rate ( = .31), or breathing frequency ( = .15) over the course of suctioning between nasal aspiration and nasopharyngeal suctioning. Sputum mass ( = .14) and clinical respiratory score differences before and after suctioning ( = .59) were not different between the 2 suctioning interventions. Sputum mass was not associated with ΔEELI at 30 min for nasal aspiration (ρ = 0.11, = .69), but there was a moderate positive association for nasopharyngeal suctioning (ρ = 0.50, = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Infants with viral bronchiolitis appeared to tolerate both suctioning techniques without adverse short-term physiologic effects, as indicated by the unchanged gas exchange and estimated lung volumes (EIT). Nasopharyngeal suctioning recovered 36% more sputum than did nasal aspiration and there was moderate correlation between sputum mass and end-expiratory lung impedance change at 30 minutes post-suction with nasopharyngeal that was not present with nasal aspiration. It is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from one type of suctioning over another. Future research focusing on important outcomes for suctioning patients with bronchiolitis with varying degrees of lung disease severity is needed.