C K Lee1, K S Ng, S G Tan, R Ang. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Changi General Hospital, Coronary Intensive Care Unit (Ward 6A), Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore 308433.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted this prospective randomised cross-over study to evaluate the effect of closed system (CS) versus open system (OS) endotracheal suctioning on heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm of patients on mechanical ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Fourteen adult patients were randomly allocated to receive either CS or OS suctioning in the first instance. For the subsequent suctioning, they were crossed over to the alternate suctioning system. The various cardiorespiratory parameters were recorded at BL1 (baseline 1), S1 (first suction pass), BL2 (baseline 2, i.e. immediately post first suction pass), S2 (second suction pass), T2 (2 minutes post suction) and T5 (5 minutes post suction). RESULTS: Compared to CS, OS suctioning was found to result in higher HR at S1 (P < or = 0.05) and S2 (P < or = 0.05); higher MAP at BL2 (P < or = 0.05); lower SpO2 at BL2 (P < or = 0.01) and S2 (P < or = 0.01). There was no significant difference in RR between the two suctioning systems. OS suctioning was also noted to result in a significantly higher incidence of arrhythmia (P < = or 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that OS suctioning results in more adverse changes in cardiorespiratory parameters compared to CS suctioning.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: We conducted this prospective randomised cross-over study to evaluate the effect of closed system (CS) versus open system (OS) endotracheal suctioning on heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm of patients on mechanical ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen adult patients were randomly allocated to receive either CS or OS suctioning in the first instance. For the subsequent suctioning, they were crossed over to the alternate suctioning system. The various cardiorespiratory parameters were recorded at BL1 (baseline 1), S1 (first suction pass), BL2 (baseline 2, i.e. immediately post first suction pass), S2 (second suction pass), T2 (2 minutes post suction) and T5 (5 minutes post suction). RESULTS: Compared to CS, OS suctioning was found to result in higher HR at S1 (P < or = 0.05) and S2 (P < or = 0.05); higher MAP at BL2 (P < or = 0.05); lower SpO2 at BL2 (P < or = 0.01) and S2 (P < or = 0.01). There was no significant difference in RR between the two suctioning systems. OS suctioning was also noted to result in a significantly higher incidence of arrhythmia (P < = or 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that OS suctioning results in more adverse changes in cardiorespiratory parameters compared to CS suctioning.
Authors: Maria Paula Caramez; Guilherme Schettino; Klaudiusz Suchodolski; Tomoyo Nishida; R Scott Harris; Atul Malhotra; Robert M Kacmarek Journal: Respir Care Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Sophie Lindgren; Helena Odenstedt; Cecilia Olegård; Sören Söndergaard; Stefan Lundin; Ola Stenqvist Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-10-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Beverley Copnell; David G Tingay; Nicholas J Kiraly; Magdy Sourial; Michael J Gordon; John F Mills; Colin J Morley; Peter A Dargaville Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-05-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Tom J Overend; Cathy M Anderson; Dina Brooks; Lisa Cicutto; Michael Keim; Debra McAuslan; Mika Nonoyama Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Leonardo Lorente; María Lecuona; Alejandro Jiménez; María L Mora; Antonio Sierra Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sophie Lindgren; Birgitta Almgren; Marieann Högman; Sven Lethvall; Erik Houltz; Stefan Lundin; Ola Stenqvist Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-02-24 Impact factor: 17.440