As-needed endotracheal suctioning protocol vs a routine endotracheal suctioning in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two endotracheal suctioning protocols according to morbidity, days of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) and mortality. METHODS: A Pragmatic randomized controlled trial performed at University Hospital Pablo Tobón Uribe, Medellin-Colombia. Forty-five children underwent an as-needed endotracheal suctioning protocol and forty five underwent a routine endotracheal suctioning protocol. Composite primary end point was the presence of hypoxemia, arrhythmias, accidental extubation and heart arrest. A logistic function trough generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to calculate the Relative Risk for the main outcome. RESULTS: Characteristics of patients were similar between groups. The composite primary end point was found in 22 (47%) of intervention group and 25 (55%) children of control group (RR= 0.84; 95% CI: 0.56-1.25), as well in 35 (5.8%) of 606 endotracheal suctioning performed to intervention group and 48 (7.4%) of 649 performed to control group (OR= 0.80; 95% CI: 0.5-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between an as-needed and a routine endotracheal suctioning protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01069185