| Literature DB >> 29391372 |
Jessica A Schults1,2,3, Marie Cooke3, Debbie A Long2,3, Andreas Schibler2,4, Robert S Ware5, Marion L Mitchell3,6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endotracheal suction (ETS) is a frequent and necessary airway intervention for the intubated child. The aim of ETS is to clear the endotracheal tube and airways of respiratory secretions; however, the methods of performing ETS are varied. Internationally a number of ETS treatments are in use. Many have not been rigorously evaluated in a randomised controlled trial setting, and it is uncertain whether any are associated with better outcomes for the critically ill child. With approximately 50% of paediatric intensive care admissions requiring intubation, ETS interventions that maximise the efficacy and minimise the complications of ETS could translate to improved health for substantial numbers of critically ill children, and significant cost savings. The primary aim of the study is to examine two ETS interventions, normal saline instillation and lung recruitment, to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full efficacy trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NARES (Normal saline instillation versus no normal saline instillation And lung Recruitment versus no lung recruitment with paediatric Endotracheal Suction) is a single-centre, pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial conducted in a tertiary referral paediatric centre in Brisbane, Australia. Children (aged 0-16 years) are eligible if they are intubated with an endotracheal tube and mechanically ventilated. Two intervention pairs will be compared using a 2×2 factorial design: (1) normal saline instillation versus no normal saline instillation; and (2) lung recruitment versus no lung recruitment. The primary outcome is study feasibility measured by a composite analysis of eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence and missing data. Secondary outcomes are ventilator-associated pneumonia, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, lung compliance, end expiratory level and regional tidal volume. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to conduct the research has been obtained. Dissemination of the research findings will be untaken, guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement recommendations. Protocol content was guided by the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials 2013 statement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000609358; Pre-results. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: paediatric anaesthesia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29391372 PMCID: PMC5878246 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Four groups within factorial randomised controlled trial
| 2×2 factorial | LR | No LR |
| NSI | NSI and LR | NSI, no LR |
| No NSI | LR, no NSI | No LR, no NSI |
LR, lung recruitment; NSI, normal saline instillation.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the NARES trial
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|
0 (>37 weeks’ gestation)–16 years of age (15 years+364 days) Oral or nasal endotracheal tube Conventional mechanical ventilation Likely to be ventilated for >24 hours* |
Cardiac surgery in this admission† Air leak syndrome‡ Ventilated for >48 hours prior to screening Previous study enrolment in this hospital admission Pulmonary hypoplasia Current diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia Tracheal reconstruction Cystic fibrosis |
*Determined as per patient plan in morning or evening medical rounds.
†Postcardiac surgery patients are excluded from enrolment due to the safety considerations associated with the lung recruitment manoeuvre.
‡In the presence of an air leak syndrome, it is at the discretion of the treating physician to include or exclude the patient in the trial.
NARES, Normal saline instillation versus no normal saline instillation And lung Recruitment versus no lung recruitment with paediatric Endotracheal Suction.