4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Monitoring tracheal tube cuff pressures in the intensive care unit: A comparison of digital palpation and manometry

期刊

ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY
卷 116, 期 9, 页码 639-642

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/000348940711600902

关键词

cuff; intubation; pressure; trachea; tracheotomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Tracheal tube cuff overinflation is a recognized risk factor for tracheal injury and stenosis. International studies report a 55% to 62% incidence of cuff overinflation among intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, there are no data on tracheotomy tubes, and no recent data from ICUs in the United States. It is unknown whether routine cuff pressure measurement is beneficial. We sought to determine the incidence of cuff overinflation in the contemporary American ICU. Methods: We performed an Institutional Review Board-approved, prospective, observational study of endotracheal and tracheotomy tubes at 2 tertiary-care academic hospitals that monitor cuff pressure differently. At hospital A, cuff pressures are assessed by palpation; at hospital B, cuff pressures are measured via manometry. We audited cuff pressures in an unannounced fashion at these hospitals, using a handheld aneroid manometer. Cuffs were considered overinflated above 25 cm H2O. Results: We enrolled 115 patients: 63 at hospital A and 52 at hospital B. Overall, 44 patients (38%) were found to have overinflated cuffs. The incidence of overinflation was identical at the 2 hospitals (38%; p = .99). Of the endotracheal tubes, 43% were overinflated, as were 32% of the tracheotomy tubes (p = .24). Conclusions: Despite increasing awareness among intensivists and respiratory therapists, the incidence of tracheal tube overinflation remains high, with both endotracheal and tracheotomy tubes. Our finding that the use of manometry to assess cuff pressures did not reduce the incidence of overinflation suggests that a more vigilant management protocol may be necessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据