Laboratório de delineamento de estudos e escrita científica, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil.
Departamento de Educação Integrada em Saúde, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES), Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Respir Care. 2021 May;66(5):785-792. doi: 10.4187/respcare.08511. Epub 2021 Mar 9.
In mechanically ventilated subjects, intra-tracheal secretions can be aspirated with either open suction systems (OSS) or closed suction systems (CSS). In contrast to CSS, conventional OSS require temporarily disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, which briefly diminishes PEEP and oxygen supply. On the other hand, CSS are more expensive and less effective at aspirating secretions. Thus, it was hypothesized that the 2 procedures differentially affect pulmonary and cardiovascular parameters after suction.
Subjects in the ICU ( = 66) were quasi-randomized for initial treatment with OSS or CSS in a crossover design. To compare the potential for these suction systems to compromise cardiorespiratory stability, changes in cardiopulmonary physiology were assessed from before to just after use of each suction system (three 10-s aspirations).
For most pulmonary and cardiovascular parameters (ie, peak inspiratory pressure, airway resistance, pressure plateau, heart rate, and arterial pressures), the effects of aspiration inversely correlated with baseline values for that parameter, with a similar regression slope between suction systems. However, when controlling for baseline values, OSS caused significantly greater increases in airway resistance and peak inspiratory pressure ( < .001 and < .01 vs CSS, respectively).
Elevated airway resistance prior to endotracheal suction may justify use of a CSS and contraindicate a conventional OSS in mechanically ventilated subjects. Adoption of this approach into clinical guidelines may prevent suction-induced pulmonary injury in subjects, especially for those with underlying diseases involving increased airway resistance or increased alveolar pressure. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03256214.).
在接受机械通气的患者中,可使用开放式吸引系统(OSS)或密闭式吸引系统(CSS)来抽吸气管内的分泌物。与 CSS 不同,传统的 OSS 需要暂时将患者与呼吸机断开连接,这会短暂降低呼气末正压(PEEP)和氧气供应。另一方面,CSS 更昂贵,并且在抽吸分泌物方面效果较差。因此,有人假设这两种程序在抽吸后对肺和心血管参数的影响不同。
在 ICU 中的患者(n=66)按照交叉设计被分为两组,分别使用 OSS 或 CSS 进行初始治疗。为了比较这两种吸引系统对心肺稳定性的潜在影响,使用每个吸引系统(三次 10 秒抽吸)前后评估心肺生理学的变化。
对于大多数肺和心血管参数(即吸气峰压、气道阻力、压力平台、心率和动脉压),抽吸的影响与该参数的基线值呈反向相关,两种吸引系统之间的回归斜率相似。然而,在控制基线值的情况下,OSS 引起的气道阻力和吸气峰压增加明显更大(<.001 和 <.01 分别与 CSS 相比)。
在进行气管内吸引之前,气道阻力升高可能表明应使用 CSS,并且在机械通气患者中禁忌使用传统的 OSS。将这种方法纳入临床指南可能会防止患者在吸引过程中发生肺损伤,特别是对于那些存在气道阻力增加或肺泡压力增加等基础疾病的患者。(ClinicalTrials.gov 注册号:NCT03256214.)。