Cargando…

Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques

Introduction: There is a correlation between endotracheal cuff pressure and airway complication; therefore, cuff pressure measurement is of an essential importance. The gold standard technique is measuring the cuff pressure by a calibrated manometer. However, there are several methods that injects a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanaie, Sarvin, Rahmani, Farzad, Chokhachian, Sara, Mahmoodpoor, Ata, Rahimi Panahi, Jafar, Mehdizadeh Esfanjani, Robab, Mirzaei, Masomeh, Soleimanpour, Hassan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6477115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31024672
http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/jcvtr.2019.08
_version_ 1783413002709499904
author Sanaie, Sarvin
Rahmani, Farzad
Chokhachian, Sara
Mahmoodpoor, Ata
Rahimi Panahi, Jafar
Mehdizadeh Esfanjani, Robab
Mirzaei, Masomeh
Soleimanpour, Hassan
author_facet Sanaie, Sarvin
Rahmani, Farzad
Chokhachian, Sara
Mahmoodpoor, Ata
Rahimi Panahi, Jafar
Mehdizadeh Esfanjani, Robab
Mirzaei, Masomeh
Soleimanpour, Hassan
author_sort Sanaie, Sarvin
collection PubMed
description Introduction: There is a correlation between endotracheal cuff pressure and airway complication; therefore, cuff pressure measurement is of an essential importance. The gold standard technique is measuring the cuff pressure by a calibrated manometer. However, there are several methods that injects air into balloon pilot and measures the cuff pressure. The aim of this study is to compare the tracheal cuff pressure measurement by two methods: fixed volume and minimal leak test (MLT). Methods: This descriptive study was performed at the emergency department on 110 patients. Patients were randomized into two groups. For one group, fixed volume technique and for the other group MLT was used. Results: Mean cuff pressure was 46.07±23.54 cmH2O in the fixed volume group and 33.72±9.14 cmH2O in the MLT group (P=0.05) which is significantly higher in the fixed volume group (P=0.028). In addition, 56.4% and 78.2% of the subjects had normal cuff pressure in the fixed volume group and MLT group, respectively; indicating a significantly higher rate in MLT group (P=0.025). Conclusion: Both techniques cause above normal intracuff pressure; however, MLT produces more acceptable pressure than fixed volume. It seems that the volume of 10 cc produces high pressures; therefore, fixed values may yield more appropriate results in lower volumes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6477115
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64771152019-04-25 Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques Sanaie, Sarvin Rahmani, Farzad Chokhachian, Sara Mahmoodpoor, Ata Rahimi Panahi, Jafar Mehdizadeh Esfanjani, Robab Mirzaei, Masomeh Soleimanpour, Hassan J Cardiovasc Thorac Res Original Article Introduction: There is a correlation between endotracheal cuff pressure and airway complication; therefore, cuff pressure measurement is of an essential importance. The gold standard technique is measuring the cuff pressure by a calibrated manometer. However, there are several methods that injects air into balloon pilot and measures the cuff pressure. The aim of this study is to compare the tracheal cuff pressure measurement by two methods: fixed volume and minimal leak test (MLT). Methods: This descriptive study was performed at the emergency department on 110 patients. Patients were randomized into two groups. For one group, fixed volume technique and for the other group MLT was used. Results: Mean cuff pressure was 46.07±23.54 cmH2O in the fixed volume group and 33.72±9.14 cmH2O in the MLT group (P=0.05) which is significantly higher in the fixed volume group (P=0.028). In addition, 56.4% and 78.2% of the subjects had normal cuff pressure in the fixed volume group and MLT group, respectively; indicating a significantly higher rate in MLT group (P=0.025). Conclusion: Both techniques cause above normal intracuff pressure; however, MLT produces more acceptable pressure than fixed volume. It seems that the volume of 10 cc produces high pressures; therefore, fixed values may yield more appropriate results in lower volumes. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2019 2019-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6477115/ /pubmed/31024672 http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/jcvtr.2019.08 Text en © 2019 The Author(s) This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sanaie, Sarvin
Rahmani, Farzad
Chokhachian, Sara
Mahmoodpoor, Ata
Rahimi Panahi, Jafar
Mehdizadeh Esfanjani, Robab
Mirzaei, Masomeh
Soleimanpour, Hassan
Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
title Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
title_full Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
title_fullStr Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
title_short Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
title_sort comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6477115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31024672
http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/jcvtr.2019.08
work_keys_str_mv AT sanaiesarvin comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT rahmanifarzad comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT chokhachiansara comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT mahmoodpoorata comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT rahimipanahijafar comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT mehdizadehesfanjanirobab comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT mirzaeimasomeh comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques
AT soleimanpourhassan comparisonoftrachealtubecuffpressurewithtwotechniquefixedvolumeandminimalleaktesttechniques