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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |