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