OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of closed system suctioning (CSS) and open system suctioning (OSS) and the side effects on gas exchange and haemodynamics, during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). DESIGN: Bench test and porcine lung injury model. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve bronchoalveolar saline-lavaged pigs. SETTING: Research laboratory in a university hospital. INTERVENTIONS: In a mechanical lung, the efficacy of OSS and CSS with 12 and 14 Fr catheters were compared during volume-control ventilation, PCV, CPAP 0 or 10 cmH(2)O by weighing the suction system before and after aspirating gel in a transparent trachea. Side effects were evaluated in the animals with the same ventilator settings during suctioning of 5, 10 or 20 s duration. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Suctioning with 12 and 14 Fr catheters was significantly more efficient with OSS (1.9+/-0.1, 2.8+/-0.9 g) and with CSS during CPAP 0 cmH(2)O (1.8+/-0.2, 4.2+/-0.5 g) as compared to CSS during PCV (0.2+/-0.2, 0.8+/-0.3 g) or CPAP 10 cmH(2)O (0.0+/-0.1, 0.7+/-0.4 g), p<0.01 (means +/- SD). OSS and CSS at CPAP 0 cmH(2)O resulted in a marked decrease in SpO(2), mixed venous oxygen saturation and tracheal pressure, p<0.001, but the side effects were considerably fewer during CSS with PCV and CPAP 10 cmH(2)O, p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of catheter size, OSS and CSS during CPAP 0 cmH(2)O were markedly more effective than CSS during PCV and CPAP 10 cmH(2)O but had worse side effects. However, the side effects lasted less than 5 min in this animal model. Suctioning should be performed effectively when absolutely indicated and the side effects handled adequately.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of closed system suctioning (CSS) and open system suctioning (OSS) and the side effects on gas exchange and haemodynamics, during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). DESIGN: Bench test and porcine lung injury model. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve bronchoalveolar saline-lavaged pigs. SETTING: Research laboratory in a university hospital. INTERVENTIONS: In a mechanical lung, the efficacy of OSS and CSS with 12 and 14 Fr catheters were compared during volume-control ventilation, PCV, CPAP 0 or 10 cmH(2)O by weighing the suction system before and after aspirating gel in a transparent trachea. Side effects were evaluated in the animals with the same ventilator settings during suctioning of 5, 10 or 20 s duration. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Suctioning with 12 and 14 Fr catheters was significantly more efficient with OSS (1.9+/-0.1, 2.8+/-0.9 g) and with CSS during CPAP 0 cmH(2)O (1.8+/-0.2, 4.2+/-0.5 g) as compared to CSS during PCV (0.2+/-0.2, 0.8+/-0.3 g) or CPAP 10 cmH(2)O (0.0+/-0.1, 0.7+/-0.4 g), p<0.01 (means +/- SD). OSS and CSS at CPAP 0 cmH(2)O resulted in a marked decrease in SpO(2), mixed venous oxygen saturation and tracheal pressure, p<0.001, but the side effects were considerably fewer during CSS with PCV and CPAP 10 cmH(2)O, p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of catheter size, OSS and CSS during CPAP 0 cmH(2)O were markedly more effective than CSS during PCV and CPAP 10 cmH(2)O but had worse side effects. However, the side effects lasted less than 5 min in this animal model. Suctioning should be performed effectively when absolutely indicated and the side effects handled adequately.
Authors: G R Bernard; A Artigas; K L Brigham; J Carlet; K Falke; L Hudson; M Lamy; J R LeGall; A Morris; R Spragg Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1994 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Hajo Reissmann; Stephan H Böhm; Fernando Suárez-Sipmann; Gerardo Tusman; Claas Buschmann; Stefan Maisch; Tanja Pesch; Oliver Thamm; Christoph Plümers; Jochen Schulte am Esch; Göran Hedenstierna Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-02-03 Impact factor: 17.440
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: R Gosselink; J Bott; M Johnson; E Dean; S Nava; M Norrenberg; B Schönhofer; K Stiller; H van de Leur; J L Vincent Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Leonardo Lorente; María Lecuona; Alejandro Jiménez; María L Mora; Antonio Sierra Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 17.440