RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences between subglottic pressure during swallowing with and without air insufflation via a subglottic catheter in tracheostomized patients. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized cross-over study was made. SETTING: Adult Intensive Care Units. PARTICIPANTS: Patients requiring mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy with a subglottic catheter, and with tolerance to deflation of the balloon and a speaking valve placed over the opening of the tracheostomy tube. INTERVENTIONS: Subglottic pressure was measured during swallowing of a thickened solution with and without the delivery of airflow through the subglottic catheter. MAIN VARIABLE: Subglottic pressure during swallowing. RESULTS: Twelve out of 14 patients showed higher subglottic pressure values during swallowing with air insufflation. Two patients showed no differences between both conditions. Median (Med) values of subglottic pressure for the first, second and third swallow were 5, 4 and 4.5 cmH2O (Med 4.5 cmH2O) without air insufflation, and 8, 5.5 and 7.5 cmH2O (Med 5.5 cmH2O) with air insufflation, respectively (Wilcoxon, Z=-3.078; p=.002). CONCLUSION: In a group of tracheostomized patients, air insufflation via a subglottic catheter increased subglottic pressure levels measured during swallowing.
Asunto(s)
Aire , Deglución/fisiología , Adulto , Anciano , Cateterismo , Estudios Cruzados , Trastornos de Deglución/etiología , Trastornos de Deglución/fisiopatología , Nutrición Enteral , Femenino , Humanos , Insuflación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Presión , Estudios Prospectivos , Respiración , Respiración Artificial , Reología , Soluciones , Traqueostomía , Viscosidad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe the variables related to effective cough capacity and the state of consciousness measured prior to decannulation and compare their measured values between the different areas of care such as the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), General ward and Mechanical Ventilation Weaning and Rehabilitation Centers (MVWRC). Secondarily analyze the evolution of patients once decannulated. DESIGN: Case series, longitudinal and prospective. SCOPE: Multicentric 31 ICUs (polyvalent) and 5 MVWRC. PATIENTS: Tracheostomized adults prior to decannulation. MEASUREMENTS: Maximum expiratory pressure, peak expiratory flow coughed (PEFC), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). RESULTS: Two hundred and seven decannulated patients, 124 (60%) in ICU, 59 (28%) General ward and 24 (12%) in MVWRC. The PEFC presented differences between the patients (ICU 110 - 190 l/min versus MVWRC 167.5 - 232.5 l/min, p <.01). The GCS was different between General ward (9 -15) versus ICU (10-15) and MVWRC (12-15); p <.01 and p <.01, respectively. There were differences in the days of hospitalization (p <.01), days with tracheostomy (<0.01) and the number of patients referred at home (p =.02) between the different scenarios. CONCLUSION: There are differences in the values of PEFC and GCS observed when decannulating between different areas. A considerable number of patients are decannulated with values of PEFC and maximum expiratory pressure below the suggested cut-off points as predictors of failure in the literature. No patient in our series was decanulated with an GCS <8, this reflects the importance that the treating team gives to the state of consciousness prior to decannulation.