A Comparison of the Haider Tube-Guard® Endotracheal Tube Holder Versus Adhesive Tape to Determine if This Novel Device Can Reduce Endotracheal Tube Movement and Prevent Unplanned Extubation.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal tube security is a critical safety issue. We compared the mobility of an in situ endotracheal tube secured with adhesive tape to the one secured with a new commercially available purpose-designed endotracheal tube-holder device (Haider Tube-Guard). We also observed for the incidence of oropharyngeal or facial trauma associated with the 2 tube fixation methods. METHODS: Thirty adult patients undergoing general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade were prospectively enrolled. Immediately after intubation, a single study author positioned the endotracheal tube tip in the distal trachea using a bronchoscope. Anesthesiologists caring for patients secured the tube in their normal fashion (always with adhesive tape). A force transducer was used to apply linear force, increasing to 15 N or until the principal investigator deemed that the force be aborted for safety reasons. The displacement of the endotracheal tube was measured with the bronchoscope. Any tape was then removed and the endotracheal tube secured with the Haider Tube-Guard device. The linear force was reapplied and the displacement of the endotracheal tube measured. The Haider Tube-Guard device was left in place for the duration of the case. The patient's face and oropharynx were examined for any evidence of trauma during surgery and in the recovery room. On discharge from the postanesthesia care unit, the patient answered a brief survey assessing for any subjective evidence of minor facial or oropharyngeal trauma. RESULTS: Under standardized tension, the endotracheal tube withdrew a mean distance of 3.4 cm when secured with adhesive tape versus 0.3 cm when secured with the Haider Tube-Guard (P <0.001). Ninety-seven percent of patients (29/30) experienced clinically significant endotracheal tube movement (>1 cm) when adhesive tape was used to secure the tube versus 3% (1/30) when the Haider Tube-Guard was used (P <0.001). Thirty percent of patients (9/30) were potentially deemed a high extubation risk (endotracheal tube movement >4 cm) when the endotracheal tube was secured with tape versus 0% (0/30) when secured with the Haider Tube-Guard (P = 0.004). Six patients with taped endotracheal tubes required the traction to be aborted before 15 N of force was achieved to prevent potential extubation as the tape either separated from the face or stretched to allow excessive endotracheal tube movement. None of the patients appeared to sustain any injury from the Haider Tube-Guard device. CONCLUSIONS: The Haider Tube-Guard significantly reduced the mobility of the endotracheal tube when compared with adhesive tape and was well tolerated in our observations.

In vitro fertilisation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone requires less IU usage compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: results from a European retrospective observational chart review.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported conflicting results for the comparative doses of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG-HP) required per cycle of in vitro fertilisation (IVF); the aim of this study was to determine the average total usage of rFSH versus hMG-HP in a 'real-world' setting using routine clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective chart review of databases from four European countries investigated gonadotrophin usage, oocyte and embryo yield, and pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles (± intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection) using rFSH or hMG-HP alone. Included patients met the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline criteria for IVF and received either rFSH or hMG-HP. Statistical tests were conducted at 5% significance using Chi-square or t-tests. RESULTS: Of 30,630 IVF cycles included in this review, 74% used rFSH and 26% used hMG-HP. A significantly lower drug usage per cycle for rFSH than hMG-HP (2072.53 +/- 76.73 IU vs. 2540.14 +/- 883.08 IU, 22.6% higher for hMG-HP; p < 0.01) was demonstrated. The median starting dose was also significantly lower for rFSH than for hMG-HP (150 IU vs. 225 IU, 50% higher for hMG-HP, p < 0.01). The average oocyte yield per IVF cycle in patients treated with rFSH was significantly greater than with hMG-HP (10.80 +/- 6.02 vs. 9.77 +/- 5.53; p < 0.01), as was the average mature oocyte yield (8.58 +/- 5.27 vs. 7.72 +/- 4.59; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in pregnancy outcomes including spontaneous abortion between the two treatments. There was a significantly higher rate of OHSS (all grades) with rFSH (18.92% vs. 14.09%; p < 0.0001). The hospitalisation rate due to OHSS was low but significantly higher in the rFSH group (1.07% of cycles started vs. 0.67% of cycles started with rFSH and hMG-HP, respectively; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, IVF treatment cycles with rFSH yield statistically more oocytes (and more mature oocytes), using significantly less IU per cycle, versus hMG-HP. The incidence of all OHSS and hospitalisations due to OHSS was significantly higher in the rFSH cycles compared to the hMG-HP cycles. However, the absolute incidence of hospitalisations due to OHSS was similar to that reported previously. These results suggest that the perceived required dosage with rFSH is currently over-estimated, and the higher unit cost of rFSH may be offset by a lower required dosage compared with hMG-HP.