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