CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Research
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Comparison of the feasibility and safety of nasotracheal suctioning with curved edge catheter versus conventional suction catheter in critically ill subjects: A prospective randomized crossover trial
Authors
K.E. Grigoriadis Angouras, D.C. Flevari, A. Xathos, T.
Publication date
1 January 2015
Publisher
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasotracheal suctioning (NTS) is accomplished by inserting a suction catheter into the trachea through the nasopharynx. It is a useful procedure in critically ill patients whose ability to cough and mobilize secretions is impaired. It was assumed that using a suction catheter with an angular tip would facilitate entry into the trachea. The primary outcome was the success rate and the ease of insertion by using a curved edge catheter (Tiemann type)compared with a conventional suction catheter. The secondary outcome was the monitoring of subject’svitalsigns during the intervention. METHODS: Non-intubated subjects hospitalized in 2 adult ICUs under-went 2 consecutive NTSs each, using either a 14 French curved edge catheter or a 14 French conventional suction catheter, randomly. RESULTS: Twenty subjects with a mean age of 75.5 y were enrolled for a time period of 5 months. The tracheal access success rate was 19/52 (successful/unsuccessful attempts) using a curved edge catheter (36.5%, 95% CI 23.6 -51.0%) compared with 12/130 (9.2%, 95% CI 4.8-15.5%) using a conventional suction catheter. The insertion was 5.6 times more likely to be achieved by using a curved edge catheter (odds ratio 5.66, 95% CI 2.49-12.84, P <.001). The number of attempts required to succeed in the insertion was significantly lower when using a curved edge catheter than when using a conventional suction catheter (for nasopharynx, median [range] of 1 [1] versus 2.5 [8], P=.001; for trachea, median [range] of 2 [9] versus 9 [9], P=.002). The time required for successful insertion into the nasopharynx and trachea was significantly shorter when using a curved edge catheter than when using a conventional suction catheter (for nasopharynx, median [range] of 3 [11] s versus 5.3 [18] s, P=.038; for trachea, median [range] of 6 [27] s versus 20 [25] s, P=.002). The traumatic rate (percentage of catheters with blood present on the tip) was exactly the same for both catheters (30%). CONCLUSIONS: It is more likely that tracheal access will be achieved using a curved edge catheter. A shorter process time and fewer attempts are required for successful NTS using a curved edge catheter, and it seems to be an equally safe procedure. © 2015 Daedalus Enterprises
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
Pergamos : Unified Institutional Repository / Digital Library Platform of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:lib.uoa.gr:uoadl:3109805
Last time updated on 10/02/2023