Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T05:53:59.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policies for Endotracheal Suctioning of Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

B. S. Niël-Weise ,
R. L. M. M. Snoeren  and
P. J. van den Broek
B. S. Niël-Weise*
Affiliation:
Dutch Working Party on Infection Prevention, Leiden
R. L. M. M. Snoeren
Affiliation:
St. Elisabeth Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, The Netherlands
P. J. van den Broek
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
*
Office of the Dutch Working Party on Infection Prevention, C9-43 P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands (B.S.Niel-Weise@lumc.nl)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

The Dutch Working Party on Infection Prevention (Werkgroep Infectiepreventie [WIP]) aimed to determine whether certain policies on endotracheal suctioning are better than others in terms of prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.

Methods.

Publications were retrieved by a systematic search of Medline and the Cochrane Library for literature published before February 2006. Additionally, the reference lists of all identified trials were examined. All randomized trials, quasi-randomized trials, and systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared different policies on endotracheal suctioning for patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Data from the original publications were used to calculate the relative risk of VAP. Data for VAP were combined in the analysis where appropriate, by use of a random-effects model.

Results.

Ten trials were included in the review. The quality of the trials and the way they were reported were generally unsatisfactory. Eight low-quality trials indicate that use of closed instead of open suction systems has no effect on the incidence of VAP. Two moderate-quality trials indicate that changing in-line suction catheters less frequently than every 24 hours does not increase the incidence of VAP.

Conclusion.

The WIP recommends that there be no preferential use of either open or closed endotracheal suction systems to reduce the rate of VAP, but it elucidates that the quality of the evidence is low. Considerations other than prevention of VAP should determine the choice of the suction system. When closed systems are used, the WIP recommends changing the in-line suction catheters every 48 hours. In case of mechanical failure or soiling of the suction system, they may be changed more frequently.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , May 2007 , pp. 531 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Maggiore, SM, Iacobone, E, Zito, G, Conti, G, Antonelli, M, Proietti, R. Closed versus open suctioning techniques. Minerva Anestesiol 2002;68:360–364.Google ScholarPubMed
2. Lee, ES, Kim, SH, Kim, JS. Effects of a closed endotracheal suction system on oxygen saturation, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and nursing efficacy. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi 2004;34:1315–1325.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Zeitoun, SS, de Barros, AL, Diccini, S, Juliano, Y. Incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients using open-suction systems and closed-suction systems: a prospective study-preliminary data. Rev tat Am Enfermagem 2001;9:46–52.Google Scholar
4. Rabitsch, W, Köstler, WJ, Fiebiger, W, et al. Closed suctioning system reduces cross-contamination between bronchial system and gastric juices. Anesth Anaig 2004;99:886–892.Google Scholar
5. Sole, ML, Byers, JF, Ludy, JE, Zhang, Y, Banta, CM, Brummel, K. A multisite survey of suctioning techniques and airway management practices. Am I Crit Care 2003;12:220–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Stoller, JK, Orens, DK, Fatica, C, et al. Weekly versus daily changes of inline suction catheters: impact on rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and associated costs. Respir Care 2003;48:494–499.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Sole, ML, Byers, JF, Ludy, JE, Ostrow, CL. Suctioning techniques and airway management. Practices: pilot study and instrument evaluation. Am J Crit Care 2002;11:363–368.Google Scholar
8. Cordero, L, Sananes, M, Ayers, LW. A comparison of two airway suctioning frequencies in mechanically ventilated, very-low birthweight infants. Respir Care 2001;46:783–788.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Cook, D, Ricard, JD, Reeve, B, et al. Ventilator circuit and secretion management strategies: a Franco-Canadian survey. Crit Care Med 2000;28:3547–3554.Google Scholar
10. Adams, DH, Hughes, M, Elliott, TSJ. Microbial colonization of closed-system suction catheters used in liver transplant patients. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 1997;13:72–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Combes, P, Fauvage, B, Oleyer, C. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive Care Med 2000;26:878–882.Google Scholar
12. Cordero, L, Sananes, M, Ayers, LW. Comparison of a closed (Traeh Care MAC) with an open endotracheal suction system in small premature infants. J Perinatol 2000;20:151–156.Google Scholar
13. Darvas, JA, Hawkins, LG. The closed tracheal suction catheter: 24 hour or 48 hour change? Aust Crit Care 2003;16:86–92.Google Scholar
14. Deppe, SA, Kelly, JW, Thoi, LL, Chudy, JH, Longfield, RN, Ducey, JP. Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: prospective randomized study. Crit Care Med 1990;18:1389–1393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Johnson, KL, Kearney, PL, Johnson, SB, Niblett, JB, MacMillan, NL, McClain, RE. Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning: costs and physiologic consequences. Crit Care Med 1994;22:658–666.Google Scholar
16. Kollef, MH, Prentice, D, Shapiro, SD, et al. Mechanical ventilation with or without daily changes of in-line suction catheters. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;156:466–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Lorente, L, Lecuona, M, Martin, MM, Garcia, C, Mora, ML, Sierra, A. Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a closed versus an open tracheal suction system. Crit Care Med 2005;33:115–119.Google Scholar
18. Lorente, L, Lecuona, M, Jiménez, A, Mora, ML, Sierra, A. Tracheal suction by closed system without daily change versus open system. Intensive Care Med 2006;32:538–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Topeli, A, Harmanci, A, Cetinkaya, Y, Akdeniz, S, Unal, S. Comparison of the effect of closed versus open endotracheal suction systems on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Hosp Infect 2004;58:14–19.Google Scholar
20. Zeitoun, SS, De Barros, ALBL, Diccini, S. A prospective, randomized study of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients using a closed vs. open suction system. J Clin Nurs 2003;12:484–489.Google Scholar
21. Gastmeier, P, Wendt, C, Ruden, H. Breathing circuit exchange in intensive care: once daily once weekly? Anaesthesist 1997;46:943–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Tablan, OC, Anderson, LJ, Besser, R, Bridges, C, Hajjeh, R. Guidelines for preventing health-care-associated pneumonia, 2003. MMWR Recomm Rep 2004;53(RR-3):1–36.Google Scholar