| Title |
Efficiency of a mechanical device in controlling tracheal cuff pressure in intubated critically ill patients: a randomized controlled study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-015-0054-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saad Nseir, Andrey Rodriguez, Paula Saludes, Julien De Jonckheere, Jordi Valles, Antonio Artigas, Ignacio Martin-Loeches |
| Abstract |
Cuff pressure (P cuff) control is mandatory to avoid leakage of oral secretions passing the tracheal tube and tracheal ischemia. The aim of the present trial was to determine the efficacy of a mechanical device (PressureEasy®) in the continuous control of P cuff in patients intubated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC)-cuffed tracheal tubes, compared with routine care using a manometer. This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, cross-over study. All patients requiring intubation with a predicted duration of mechanical ventilation ≥48 h were eligible. Eighteen patients randomly received continuous control of P cuff with PressureEasy® device for 24 h, followed by discontinuous control (every 4 h) with a manual manometer for 24 h, or vice versa. P cuff and airway pressure were continuously recorded. P cuff target was 25 cmH2O during the two periods. The percentage of time spent with P cuff 20-30 cmH2O (median (IQR) 34 % (17-57) versus 50 % (35-64), p = 0.184) and the percentage of time spent with P cuff <20 cmH2O (23 % (5-63) versus 43 % (16-60), p = 0.5) were similar during continuous control of P cuff and routine care, respectively. However, the percentage of time spent with P cuff >30 cmH2O was significantly higher during continuous control compared with routine care of tracheal cuff (26 % (14-39) versus 7 % (1-18), p = 0.002). No significant difference was found in P cuff (25 (18-28) versus 21 (18-26), p = 0.17), mean airway pressure (14 (10-17) versus 14 (11-16), p = 0.679), or coefficient of variation of P cuff (19 % (11-26) versus 20 % (11-25), p = 0.679) during continuous control compared with routine care of tracheal cuff, respectively. PressureEasy® did not demonstrate a better control of P cuff between 20 and 30 cmH2O, compared with routine care using a manometer. Moreover, the device use resulted in significantly higher time spent with overinflation of tracheal cuff, which might increase the risk for tracheal ischemic lesions. Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02109003. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,901,936
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#728
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,379
of 269,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.