Cargando…

Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conventional practice of endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff inflation and pressure measurement as compared to the instrumental method. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Anaesthesia, King Saud University Hospital, Riyadh, Sa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khan, Mueen Ullah, Khokar, Rashid, Qureshi, Sadia, Al Zahrani, Tariq, Aqil, Mansoor, Shiraz, Motasim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27833487
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.179113
_version_ 1782456994872950784
author Khan, Mueen Ullah
Khokar, Rashid
Qureshi, Sadia
Al Zahrani, Tariq
Aqil, Mansoor
Shiraz, Motasim
author_facet Khan, Mueen Ullah
Khokar, Rashid
Qureshi, Sadia
Al Zahrani, Tariq
Aqil, Mansoor
Shiraz, Motasim
author_sort Khan, Mueen Ullah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conventional practice of endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff inflation and pressure measurement as compared to the instrumental method. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Anaesthesia, King Saud University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (June 2014–July 2014). METHODS: A total of 100 adult patients were observed according to the syringe size used Group-1 (10 ml) and Group-2 (20 ml) for ETT cuff inflation in general anesthesia. Patients with anticipated difficult intubation, risk for aspiration, known anatomical laryngotracheal abnormalities, and emergency cases were excluded. Trachea was intubated with size 8 or 8.5 mm and 7.0 or 7.5 mm ETT in male and female patients respectively. The ETT cuff was inflated with air by one of the anesthesia technician. Cuff pressures were measured using aneroid manometer. ETT cuff pressure of 20–30 cm of water was considered as standard. RESULTS: In 69% of the patients, the cuff pressure measurements were above the standard. Age (P = 0.806), weight (P = 0.527), height (P = 0.850), and gender (P = 1.00) were comparable in both groups. The mean cuff pressure in Group-1 and Group-2 was 32.52 ± 6.39 and 38.90 ± 6.60 cm of water (P = 0.001). The cuff inflation with 20 ml syringe resulted in higher cuff pressure as compared to 10cc syringe 37.73 ± 4.23 versus 40.74 ± 5.01 (86% vs. 52%, P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: The conventional method for ETT cuff inflation and pressure measuring is unreliable. As a routine instrumental cuff pressure, monitoring is suggested.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5044728
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50447282016-11-11 Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method Khan, Mueen Ullah Khokar, Rashid Qureshi, Sadia Al Zahrani, Tariq Aqil, Mansoor Shiraz, Motasim Saudi J Anaesth Original Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conventional practice of endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff inflation and pressure measurement as compared to the instrumental method. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Anaesthesia, King Saud University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (June 2014–July 2014). METHODS: A total of 100 adult patients were observed according to the syringe size used Group-1 (10 ml) and Group-2 (20 ml) for ETT cuff inflation in general anesthesia. Patients with anticipated difficult intubation, risk for aspiration, known anatomical laryngotracheal abnormalities, and emergency cases were excluded. Trachea was intubated with size 8 or 8.5 mm and 7.0 or 7.5 mm ETT in male and female patients respectively. The ETT cuff was inflated with air by one of the anesthesia technician. Cuff pressures were measured using aneroid manometer. ETT cuff pressure of 20–30 cm of water was considered as standard. RESULTS: In 69% of the patients, the cuff pressure measurements were above the standard. Age (P = 0.806), weight (P = 0.527), height (P = 0.850), and gender (P = 1.00) were comparable in both groups. The mean cuff pressure in Group-1 and Group-2 was 32.52 ± 6.39 and 38.90 ± 6.60 cm of water (P = 0.001). The cuff inflation with 20 ml syringe resulted in higher cuff pressure as compared to 10cc syringe 37.73 ± 4.23 versus 40.74 ± 5.01 (86% vs. 52%, P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: The conventional method for ETT cuff inflation and pressure measuring is unreliable. As a routine instrumental cuff pressure, monitoring is suggested. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5044728/ /pubmed/27833487 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.179113 Text en Copyright: © Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Khan, Mueen Ullah
Khokar, Rashid
Qureshi, Sadia
Al Zahrani, Tariq
Aqil, Mansoor
Shiraz, Motasim
Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method
title Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method
title_full Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method
title_fullStr Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method
title_full_unstemmed Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method
title_short Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method
title_sort measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: instrumental versus conventional method
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27833487
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.179113
work_keys_str_mv AT khanmueenullah measurementofendotrachealtubecuffpressureinstrumentalversusconventionalmethod
AT khokarrashid measurementofendotrachealtubecuffpressureinstrumentalversusconventionalmethod
AT qureshisadia measurementofendotrachealtubecuffpressureinstrumentalversusconventionalmethod
AT alzahranitariq measurementofendotrachealtubecuffpressureinstrumentalversusconventionalmethod
AT aqilmansoor measurementofendotrachealtubecuffpressureinstrumentalversusconventionalmethod
AT shirazmotasim measurementofendotrachealtubecuffpressureinstrumentalversusconventionalmethod