Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of commercial and noncommercial endotracheal tube-securing devices.
Fisher, Daniel F; Chenelle, Christopher T; Marchese, Andrew D; Kratohvil, Joseph P; Kacmarek, Robert M.
Afiliação
  • Fisher DF; Respiratory Care Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. dfisher2@partners.org.
  • Chenelle CT; Respiratory Care Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Marchese AD; Respiratory Care Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Kratohvil JP; Respiratory Care Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Kacmarek RM; Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Respir Care ; 59(9): 1315-23, 2014 Sep.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24368866
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Tracheal intubation is used to establish a secure airway in patients who require mechanical ventilation. Unexpected extubation can have serious complications, including airway trauma and death. Various methods and devices have been developed to maintain endotracheal tube (ETT) security. Associated complications include pressure ulcers due to decreased tissue perfusion. Device consideration includes ease of use, rapid application, and low exerted pressure around the airway.

METHODS:

Sixteen ETT holders were evaluated under a series of simulated clinical conditions. ETT security was tested by measuring distance displaced after a tug. Nine of the 16 methods could be evaluated for speed of moving the ETT to the opposite side of the mouth. Sensors located on a mannequin measured applied forces when the head was rotated vertically or horizontally. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance, with P < .05.

RESULTS:

Median displacement of the ETT by the tug test was 0 cm (interquartile range of 0.0-0.10 cm, P < .001). The mean time to move the ETT from one side of the mouth to the other ranged from 1.25 ± 0.2 s to 34.4 ± 3.4 s (P < .001). Forces applied to the face with a vertical head lift ranged from < 0.2 newtons (N) to a maximum of 3.52 N (P < .001). Forces applied to the face with a horizontal rotation ranged from < 0.2 N to 3.52 N (P < .001). Commercial devices produced greater force than noncommercial devices.

CONCLUSIONS:

Noncommercial airway holders exert less force on a patient's face than commercial devices. Airway stability is affected by the type of securing method. Many commercial holders allow for rapid but secure movement of the artificial airway from one side of the mouth to the other.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Respiração Artificial / Teste de Materiais / Falha de Equipamento / Intubação Intratraqueal Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Respiração Artificial / Teste de Materiais / Falha de Equipamento / Intubação Intratraqueal Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article