Vedanta Dariya1, Luca Moresco2, Matteo Bruschettini3,4, Luc P Brion5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 2. Pediatric and Neonatology Unit, Ospedale San Paolo, Savona, Italy. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Paediatrics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 4. Cochrane Sweden, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 5. Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure in neonates, the risks of which are well-described. Some endotracheal tubes (ETT) are equipped with a cuff that can be inflated after insertion of the ETT in the airway to limit leak or aspiration. Cuffed ETTs have been shown in larger children and adults to reduce gas leak around the ETT, ETT exchange, accidental extubation, and exposure of healthcare workers to anesthetic gas during surgery. With improved understanding of neonatal airway anatomy and the widespread use of cuffed ETTs by anesthesiologists, the use of cuffed tubes is increasing in neonates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated or non-inflated) compared to uncuffed ETTs for respiratory support in neonates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and CINAHL on 20 August 2021; we also searched trial registers and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-randomized trials comparing cuffed (inflated and non-inflated) versus uncuffed ETTs in newborns. We sought to compare 1. inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; 2. non-inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; and 3. inflated, cuffed versus non-inflated, cuffed ETT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one eligible RCT for inclusion that compared the use of cuffed (inflated if ETT leak greater than 20% with cuff pressure 20 cm H2O or less) versus uncuffed ETT. The author provided a spreadsheet with individual data. Among 76 infants in the original manuscript, 69 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this Cochrane Review. We found possible bias due to lack of blinding and other bias. We are very uncertain about frequency of postextubation stridor, because the confidence intervals (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) were very wide (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.25; risk difference (RD) 0.03, -0.11 to 0.18; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate was diagnosed with postextubation subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy was not available to confirm the clinical diagnosis. We are very uncertain about reintubation for stridor or subglottic stenosis because the CIs of the RR were very wide (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.49; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate had surgical intervention (e.g. endoscopic balloon dilation, cricoid split, tracheostomy) for stridor or subglottic stenosis (1 study, 69 participants). Neonates randomized to cuffed ETT may be less likely to have a reintubation for any reason (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about accidental extubation because the CIs of the RR were wide (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization because the CIs of the RR were extremely wide (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 58.39; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is one ongoing trial. We classified two studies as awaiting classification because outcome data were not reported separately for newborns and older infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonates is limited by a small number of babies in a single RCT with possible bias. There is very low certainty evidence for all outcomes of this review. CIs of the estimate for postextubation stridor were wide. No neonate had clinical evidence for subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy results were not available to assess the anatomy. Additional RCTs are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated and non-inflated) in the neonatal population. These studies must include neonates and be conducted both for short-term use (in the setting of the operating room) and chronic use (in the setting of chronic lung disease) of cuffed ETTs.
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure in neonates, the risks of which are well-described. Some endotracheal tubes (ETT) are equipped with a cuff that can be inflated after insertion of the ETT in the airway to limit leak or aspiration. Cuffed ETTs have been shown in larger children and adults to reduce gas leak around the ETT, ETT exchange, accidental extubation, and exposure of healthcare workers to anesthetic gas during surgery. With improved understanding of neonatal airway anatomy and the widespread use of cuffed ETTs by anesthesiologists, the use of cuffed tubes is increasing in neonates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated or non-inflated) compared to uncuffed ETTs for respiratory support in neonates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and CINAHL on 20 August 2021; we also searched trial registers and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-randomized trials comparing cuffed (inflated and non-inflated) versus uncuffed ETTs in newborns. We sought to compare 1. inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; 2. non-inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; and 3. inflated, cuffed versus non-inflated, cuffed ETT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one eligible RCT for inclusion that compared the use of cuffed (inflated if ETT leak greater than 20% with cuff pressure 20 cm H2O or less) versus uncuffed ETT. The author provided a spreadsheet with individual data. Among 76 infants in the original manuscript, 69 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this Cochrane Review. We found possible bias due to lack of blinding and other bias. We are very uncertain about frequency of postextubation stridor, because the confidence intervals (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) were very wide (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.25; risk difference (RD) 0.03, -0.11 to 0.18; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate was diagnosed with postextubation subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy was not available to confirm the clinical diagnosis. We are very uncertain about reintubation for stridor or subglottic stenosis because the CIs of the RR were very wide (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.49; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate had surgical intervention (e.g. endoscopic balloon dilation, cricoid split, tracheostomy) for stridor or subglottic stenosis (1 study, 69 participants). Neonates randomized to cuffed ETT may be less likely to have a reintubation for any reason (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about accidental extubation because the CIs of the RR were wide (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization because the CIs of the RR were extremely wide (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 58.39; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is one ongoing trial. We classified two studies as awaiting classification because outcome data were not reported separately for newborns and older infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonates is limited by a small number of babies in a single RCT with possible bias. There is very low certainty evidence for all outcomes of this review. CIs of the estimate for postextubation stridor were wide. No neonate had clinical evidence for subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy results were not available to assess the anatomy. Additional RCTs are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated and non-inflated) in the neonatal population. These studies must include neonates and be conducted both for short-term use (in the setting of the operating room) and chronic use (in the setting of chronic lung disease) of cuffed ETTs.
Authors: S Niermeyer; J Kattwinkel; P Van Reempts; V Nadkarni; B Phillips; D Zideman; D Azzopardi; R Berg; D Boyle; R Boyle; D Burchfield; W Carlo; L Chameides; S Denson; M Fallat; M Gerardi; A Gunn; M F Hazinski; W Keenan; S Knaebel; A Milner; J Perlman; O D Saugstad; C Schleien; A Solimano; M Speer; S Toce; T Wiswell; A Zaritsky Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: John Kattwinkel; Jeffrey M Perlman; Khalid Aziz; Christopher Colby; Karen Fairchild; John Gallagher; Mary Fran Hazinski; Louis P Halamek; Praveen Kumar; George Little; Jane E McGowan; Barbara Nightengale; Mildred M Ramirez; Steven Ringer; Wendy M Simon; Gary M Weiner; Myra Wyckoff; Jeanette Zaichkin Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ramadan A Mahmoud; Hans Proquitté; Naglaa Fawzy; Christoph Bührer; Gerd Schmalisch Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Tariq M Wani; Bruno Bissonnette; Mahmood Rafiq; Melissa Moore-Clingenpeel; Mazen Al Sohaibani; Joseph D Tobias Journal: Saudi J Anaesth Date: 2017 Apr-Jun
Authors: Katharina Bibl; Lena Pracher; Erik Küng; Michael Wagner; Imme Roesner; Angelika Berger; Michael Hermon; Tobias Werther Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 3.569