TABLE 4.
Summary of randomized studies on minimally invasive suctioning
| Author (reference), study design | Description of groups and interventions | Outcome measures | Summary of main results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leur et al (36), RCT | Sample: Patients in a cardiothoracic and general surgery ICU requiring MV (n=383)
Group 1 (n=197): OS using a 49 cm suction catheter Group 2 (n=186): On-demand minimally invasive OS using a 29 cm suction catheter |
Duration of mechanical ventilation
LOS (in ICU) LOS (in hospital) Incidence of pulmonary infection Mortality Adverse events |
No significant difference between groups in duration of MV, incidence of pulmonary infection, mortality, LOS
Fewer adverse events in group 2 (decreased SaO2 and arrhythmias, increased SBP, pulse pressure and hemoptysis) (P<0.01) |
| Leur et al (37), RCT | Sample: Patients in a cardiothoracic and general surgery ICU requiring MV (n=208)
Group 1 (n=113): OS using a 49 cm suction catheter Group 2 (n=95): On-demand minimally invasive OS using a 29 cm suction catheter |
Recollection of suctioning
Discomfort with suctioning (VAS) |
Lower prevalence of recollection in group 2 (P=0.001)
Of those who recalled the suctioning experience (group 1 [n=46], group 2 [n=19]), there was no significant difference in reported level of discomfort between groups |
ETT Endotracheal tube; ICU Intensive care unit; MV Mechanical ventilation; OS Open suction; RCT Randomized controlled trial; SaO2 Arterial oxygen saturation; SBP Systolic blood pressure; VAS Visual analogue scale