Impact of two endotracheal tube fixation on the incidence of peri-oral lesions: Elastic adhesive strips versus cord in a protective sheath. Study protocol for a cluster cross-over randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal tube fixation in ventilated patients must be appropriate to ensure security during mechanical ventilation and prevent skin lesions. The incidence of endotracheal tube-caused pressure ulcers ranges from 7% to 45%. Various endotracheal tube fixations are used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. By pressure exercised on the skin, these systems could lead to mucosal and skin peri-oral lesions. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the two fixation systems most commonly used in French ICUs (adhesive elastic band versus fixation cord with PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) sheath) on the incidence of these peri-oral skin lesions. METHODS: This studyis a multicenter, open-label, controlled, superiority, cluster cross-over randomized trial. 768 patients will be recruited in the 16 ICUs involved. The inclusion of patients will be carried out over two 12-month periods. Each site begins with one of the evaluated fixation systems: elastic adhesive tape or cord associated with a protective sheath. After a 4-month break, each site switches to the other fixation system. The primary outcome is the development of at least one peri-oral lesion during the first ten days of maintaining an orally inserted endotracheal tube. The presence of lesions is assessed by a blinded adjudication committee using photographs taken daily. DISCUSSION: This study is the first multicenter, randomized trial designed to evaluate the impact of elastic adhesive tape versus fixation cord with PVC sheath on the incidence of peri-oral lesions. The results will provide data which could change and standardize care practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Reference number: NCT04819425.

Effect on comfort of administering bubble-humidified or dry oxygen: the Oxyrea non-inferiority randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical interest of using bubble humidification of oxygen remains controversial. This study was designed to further explore whether delivering dry oxygen instead of bubble-moistened oxygen had an impact on discomfort of ICU patients. METHODS: This randomized multicenter non-inferiority open trial included patients admitted in intensive care unit and receiving oxygen. Any patient receiving non-humidified oxygen (between 0 and 15 L/min) for less than 2 h could participate in the study. Randomization was stratified based on the flow rate at inclusion (less or more than 4 L/min). Discomfort was assessed 6-8 and 24 h after inclusion using a dedicated 15-item scale (quoted from 0 to 150). RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-four ICU patients receiving non-humidified oxygen were randomized either in the humidified (HO) (n = 172), using bubble humidifiers, or in the non-humidified (NHO) (n = 182) arms. In modified intention-to-treat analysis at H6-H8, the 15-item score was 26.6 ± 19.4 and 29.8 ± 23.4 in the HO and NHO groups, respectively. The absolute difference between scores in both groups was 3.2 [90% CI 0.0; + 6.5] for a non-inferiority margin of 5.3, meaning that the non-inferiority analysis was not conclusive. This was also true for the subgroups of patients receiving either less or more than 4 L/min of oxygen. At H24, using NHO was not inferior compared to HO in the general population and in the subgroup of patients receiving 4 L/min or less of oxygen. However, for patients receiving more than 4 L/min, a post hoc superiority analysis suggested that patients receiving dry oxygen were less comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen therapy-related discomfort was low. Dry oxygen could not be demonstrated as non-inferior compared to bubble-moistened oxygen after 6-8 h of oxygen administration. At 24 h, dry oxygen was non-inferior compared to bubble-humidified oxygen for flows below 4 L/min.