Comparison of four endotracheal tube cleaning protocols in anesthetized dogs

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of 4 cleaning protocols applied to endotracheal tubes (ETTs) collected from anesthetized dogs. SAMPLE 100 ETTs (25 per protocol). PROCEDURES A 10-question survey designed to determine ETT reuse and cleaning practices was distributed via email to a sample of veterinary anesthesiologists. Informed by survey results, 4 ETT cleaning protocols were selected for use in a prospective clinical study. Dogs were intubated with sterile polyvinyl chloride ETTs. At extubation, each ETT was cultured for bacterial growth, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 protocols [water scrub (P1), detergent scrub (P2), detergent scrub and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) soak (P3), or detergent scrub and bleach soak (P4)], and cultured again after drying. Bacterial genera were identified using mass spectrometry and 16s rRNA sequencing. Proportions of ETTs exhibiting no post-cleaning growth were compared between protocols using the Fisher exact test with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS Half of survey respondents that reused ETTs did not sterilize them before reuse, cleaning methods varied widely, and no reported methods were evidence-based. After use, the number of ETTs exhibiting no post-cleaning bacterial growth were 15/25 (60%), 14/25 (56%), 20/25 (80%), and 17/25 (68%) for protocols P1, P2, P3, and P4, respectively. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences between protocols. CLINICAL RELEVANCE In small animal patients, some veterinary anesthesiologists reuse ETTs without sterilization and cleaning protocols vary widely. No differences between the studied protocols were identified. Further research is necessary to identify a safe, efficacious ETT cleaning protocol for use in small animal practice.

Automated summary

This study compared the efficacy of four cleaning protocols for endotracheal tubes in anesthetized dogs. The survey results revealed that some veterinary anesthesiologists reused tubes without sterilization and there was a wide variation in cleaning methods. However, no significant differences were found between the tested protocols. Further research is needed to identify a safe and effective cleaning protocol for endotracheal tubes in small animal practice.