Literature DB >> 24368866

Comparison of commercial and noncommercial endotracheal tube-securing devices.

Daniel F Fisher1, Christopher T Chenelle2, Andrew D Marchese3, Joseph P Kratohvil2, Robert M Kacmarek4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is used to establish a secure airway in patients who require mechanical ventilation. Unexpected extubation can have serious complications, including airway trauma and death. Various methods and devices have been developed to maintain endotracheal tube (ETT) security. Associated complications include pressure ulcers due to decreased tissue perfusion. Device consideration includes ease of use, rapid application, and low exerted pressure around the airway.
METHODS: Sixteen ETT holders were evaluated under a series of simulated clinical conditions. ETT security was tested by measuring distance displaced after a tug. Nine of the 16 methods could be evaluated for speed of moving the ETT to the opposite side of the mouth. Sensors located on a mannequin measured applied forces when the head was rotated vertically or horizontally. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance, with P < .05.
RESULTS: Median displacement of the ETT by the tug test was 0 cm (interquartile range of 0.0-0.10 cm, P < .001). The mean time to move the ETT from one side of the mouth to the other ranged from 1.25 ± 0.2 s to 34.4 ± 3.4 s (P < .001). Forces applied to the face with a vertical head lift ranged from < 0.2 newtons (N) to a maximum of 3.52 N (P < .001). Forces applied to the face with a horizontal rotation ranged from < 0.2 N to 3.52 N (P < .001). Commercial devices produced greater force than noncommercial devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Noncommercial airway holders exert less force on a patient's face than commercial devices. Airway stability is affected by the type of securing method. Many commercial holders allow for rapid but secure movement of the artificial airway from one side of the mouth to the other.
Copyright © 2014 by Daedalus Enterprises.

Entities:  

Keywords:  airway holder; endotracheal tube; mechanical ventilation; secure airway; tracheal intubation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24368866     DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02951

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Respir Care        ISSN: 0020-1324            Impact factor:   2.258


  5 in total

1.  Which endotracheal tube location minimises the device-related pressure ulcer risk: The centre or a corner of the mouth?

Authors:  Golan Amrani; Amit Gefen
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Endotracheal tube fastening device-related pressure necrosis of the upper lip.

Authors:  Dominik Greda; David Straka; Matthew Cooper; Russel Kahmke
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-02-19

3.  Impact of the introduction of an endotracheal tube attachment device on the incidence and severity of oral pressure injuries in the intensive care unit: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Jaye Hampson; Cameron Green; Joanne Stewart; Lauren Armitstead; Gemma Degan; Andrea Aubrey; Eldho Paul; Ravindranath Tiruvoipati
Journal:  BMC Nurs       Date:  2018-02-08

4.  Perioral pressure ulcers in patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Aseel Sleiwah; Ganeshkrishna Nair; Maleeha Mughal; Katie Lancaster; Imran Ahmad
Journal:  Eur J Plast Surg       Date:  2020-09-15

5.  Comparison of three fixation methods for orotracheal intubation in 95 adults.

Authors:  Ye Sun; Hua Fan; Xiao-Xia Song; Hua Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 2.175

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.