Cargando…
Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques
BACKGROUND: Tracheal stenosis, which has received more emphasis recently, is a common post intubation complication and may develop due to different reasons. One important reason is the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. Therefore, this study sought to examine the accuracy of diagnostic test for palpat...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114727 |
_version_ | 1782428458833412096 |
---|---|
author | Totonchi, Ziae Jalili, Fatemeh Hashemian, Seyed Mohammadreza Jabardarjani, Hamid Reza |
author_facet | Totonchi, Ziae Jalili, Fatemeh Hashemian, Seyed Mohammadreza Jabardarjani, Hamid Reza |
author_sort | Totonchi, Ziae |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Tracheal stenosis, which has received more emphasis recently, is a common post intubation complication and may develop due to different reasons. One important reason is the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. Therefore, this study sought to examine the accuracy of diagnostic test for palpation and minimal occlusive volume techniques to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross sectional study, the accuracy of diagnostic tests for palpation and minimal occlusive volume techniques to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure was assessed in 101 patients aged over 18 years who had undergone open heart surgery and post-surgical mechanical ventilation in the ICU. RESULTS: In the palpation technique, the cuff pressure of 27 patients (26.7%) was reported to be out of the permissible range and for the rest of them (74 patients, 73.3%) it was within the permissible range. Then, the cuff pressure was checked by the standard method using a manometer and after comparing the results it was found that the cuff pressure of 92 patients (91.1%) was not in the permissible range and only nine patients (8.9%) had a cuff pressure within the permissible range (20–30 cm H(2)O). In minimal occlusive volume method compared with the standard method, 22 patients (21.7%) had cuff pressure within the permissible range of 20–30 cm H(2)O, and 79 of them (78.2%) had cuff pressure out of the permissible range and higher than the upper limit. CONCLUSION: This study recommends that the best way to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure is to use a cuff manometer, and when it is not available, the minimal occlusive volume would be a better alternative compared to the palpation technique to keep the cuff pressure within a proper range to avoid tracheotomy complications such as tracheal stenosis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4841992 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48419922016-04-25 Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques Totonchi, Ziae Jalili, Fatemeh Hashemian, Seyed Mohammadreza Jabardarjani, Hamid Reza Tanaffos Original Article BACKGROUND: Tracheal stenosis, which has received more emphasis recently, is a common post intubation complication and may develop due to different reasons. One important reason is the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. Therefore, this study sought to examine the accuracy of diagnostic test for palpation and minimal occlusive volume techniques to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross sectional study, the accuracy of diagnostic tests for palpation and minimal occlusive volume techniques to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure was assessed in 101 patients aged over 18 years who had undergone open heart surgery and post-surgical mechanical ventilation in the ICU. RESULTS: In the palpation technique, the cuff pressure of 27 patients (26.7%) was reported to be out of the permissible range and for the rest of them (74 patients, 73.3%) it was within the permissible range. Then, the cuff pressure was checked by the standard method using a manometer and after comparing the results it was found that the cuff pressure of 92 patients (91.1%) was not in the permissible range and only nine patients (8.9%) had a cuff pressure within the permissible range (20–30 cm H(2)O). In minimal occlusive volume method compared with the standard method, 22 patients (21.7%) had cuff pressure within the permissible range of 20–30 cm H(2)O, and 79 of them (78.2%) had cuff pressure out of the permissible range and higher than the upper limit. CONCLUSION: This study recommends that the best way to measure the endotracheal tube cuff pressure is to use a cuff manometer, and when it is not available, the minimal occlusive volume would be a better alternative compared to the palpation technique to keep the cuff pressure within a proper range to avoid tracheotomy complications such as tracheal stenosis. National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4841992/ /pubmed/27114727 Text en Copyright© 2015 National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Totonchi, Ziae Jalili, Fatemeh Hashemian, Seyed Mohammadreza Jabardarjani, Hamid Reza Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques |
title | Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques |
title_full | Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques |
title_fullStr | Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques |
title_short | Tracheal Stenosis and Cuff Pressure: Comparison of Minimal Occlusive Volume and Palpation Techniques |
title_sort | tracheal stenosis and cuff pressure: comparison of minimal occlusive volume and palpation techniques |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114727 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT totonchiziae trachealstenosisandcuffpressurecomparisonofminimalocclusivevolumeandpalpationtechniques AT jalilifatemeh trachealstenosisandcuffpressurecomparisonofminimalocclusivevolumeandpalpationtechniques AT hashemianseyedmohammadreza trachealstenosisandcuffpressurecomparisonofminimalocclusivevolumeandpalpationtechniques AT jabardarjanihamidreza trachealstenosisandcuffpressurecomparisonofminimalocclusivevolumeandpalpationtechniques |