Cargando…

Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study

BACKGROUND: Methods of determining proper endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff pressure to prevent air leakage include the minimal occlusive volume (MOV) technique, which uses auscultation, and the spirometer technique, which directly measures inspiratory and expiratory breathing volumes. Spirometers may me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Ha Yeon, Kim, Mina, In, Junyong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7713835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33329837
http://dx.doi.org/10.17085/apm.20020
_version_ 1783618626533720064
author Park, Ha Yeon
Kim, Mina
In, Junyong
author_facet Park, Ha Yeon
Kim, Mina
In, Junyong
author_sort Park, Ha Yeon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Methods of determining proper endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff pressure to prevent air leakage include the minimal occlusive volume (MOV) technique, which uses auscultation, and the spirometer technique, which directly measures inspiratory and expiratory breathing volumes. Spirometers may measure even small air leakage, therefore, the spirometer technique requires a higher cuff pressure than the MOV technique to completely seal the airway. This study aimed to evaluate the difference in cuff pressure between the two techniques used to seal the airway. METHODS: Thirty-five female patients were intubated using an ETT with a cuff, and cuff inflation was performed with both techniques at a 10-min interval in random order—the MOV technique and then the spirometer technique or vice versa. The cuff pressure was measured at each period. RESULTS: The cuff pressures were 16.7 ± 4.4 cmH(2)O and 18.7 ± 5.2 cmH(2)O for the MOV and spirometer techniques, respectively. The cuff pressure for the spirometer technique was 2.0 cmH(2)O higher than that for the MOV technique and this difference was statistically significant (95% confidence interval, 0.7–3.3; P = 0.003). Considering the upper end (3.3 cmH(2)O) of the 95% confidence interval and the size of one scale unit (2.0 cmH(2)O) of a manometer, the difference in cuff pressure was up to 4 cmH(2)O in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the air leakage sound disappears on auscultation, unlike the previous recommendation, the airway sealing would be completed only by increasing the cuff pressure by approximately 4 cmH(2)O.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7713835
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77138352020-12-15 Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study Park, Ha Yeon Kim, Mina In, Junyong Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) General Article BACKGROUND: Methods of determining proper endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff pressure to prevent air leakage include the minimal occlusive volume (MOV) technique, which uses auscultation, and the spirometer technique, which directly measures inspiratory and expiratory breathing volumes. Spirometers may measure even small air leakage, therefore, the spirometer technique requires a higher cuff pressure than the MOV technique to completely seal the airway. This study aimed to evaluate the difference in cuff pressure between the two techniques used to seal the airway. METHODS: Thirty-five female patients were intubated using an ETT with a cuff, and cuff inflation was performed with both techniques at a 10-min interval in random order—the MOV technique and then the spirometer technique or vice versa. The cuff pressure was measured at each period. RESULTS: The cuff pressures were 16.7 ± 4.4 cmH(2)O and 18.7 ± 5.2 cmH(2)O for the MOV and spirometer techniques, respectively. The cuff pressure for the spirometer technique was 2.0 cmH(2)O higher than that for the MOV technique and this difference was statistically significant (95% confidence interval, 0.7–3.3; P = 0.003). Considering the upper end (3.3 cmH(2)O) of the 95% confidence interval and the size of one scale unit (2.0 cmH(2)O) of a manometer, the difference in cuff pressure was up to 4 cmH(2)O in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the air leakage sound disappears on auscultation, unlike the previous recommendation, the airway sealing would be completed only by increasing the cuff pressure by approximately 4 cmH(2)O. Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2020-07-31 2020-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7713835/ /pubmed/33329837 http://dx.doi.org/10.17085/apm.20020 Text en Copyright © the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2020 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle General Article
Park, Ha Yeon
Kim, Mina
In, Junyong
Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
title Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
title_full Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
title_fullStr Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
title_full_unstemmed Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
title_short Does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
title_sort does the minimal occlusive volume technique provide adequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure to prevent air leakage?: a prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study
topic General Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7713835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33329837
http://dx.doi.org/10.17085/apm.20020
work_keys_str_mv AT parkhayeon doestheminimalocclusivevolumetechniqueprovideadequateendotrachealtubecuffpressuretopreventairleakageaprospectiverandomizedcrossoverclinicalstudy
AT kimmina doestheminimalocclusivevolumetechniqueprovideadequateendotrachealtubecuffpressuretopreventairleakageaprospectiverandomizedcrossoverclinicalstudy
AT injunyong doestheminimalocclusivevolumetechniqueprovideadequateendotrachealtubecuffpressuretopreventairleakageaprospectiverandomizedcrossoverclinicalstudy