ArticleAnnals of intensive care2015
Efficiency of a mechanical device in controlling tracheal cuff pressure in intubated critically ill patients: a randomized controlled study.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02109003 (Efficiency of PressureEasy in Controlling Tracheal Cuff Pressure in Intubated Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Efficiency of PressureEasy in Controlling Tracheal Cuff Pressure in Intubated Critically Ill Patients
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of reinforced endotracheal tubes with pressure indicators in preventing postoperative airway-related complications in neurosurgical patients: a randomized controlled study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- The effect of different inflating volume on the measurement accuracy of the modified cuff pressure measurement method.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Article
- Efficiency of an electronic device in controlling tracheal cuff pressure in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled crossover study.Annals of intensive care · 2016Article
- Measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressure: Instrumental versus conventional method.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCuff pressure (P cuff) control is mandatory to avoid leakage of oral secretions passing the tracheal tube and tracheal ischemia. The aim of the present trial was to determine the efficacy of a mechanical device (PressureEasy®) in the continuous control of P cuff in patients intubated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC)-cuffed tracheal tubes, compared with routine care using a manometer.
methodsThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled, cross-over study. All patients requiring intubation with a predicted duration of mechanical ventilation ≥48 h were eligible. Eighteen patients randomly received continuous control of P cuff with PressureEasy® device for 24 h, followed by discontinuous control (every 4 h) with a manual manometer for 24 h, or vice versa. P cuff and airway pressure were continuously recorded. P cuff target was 25 cmH2O during the two periods.
resultsThe percentage of time spent with P cuff 20-30 cmH2O (median (IQR) 34 % (17-57) versus 50 % (35-64), p = 0.184) and the percentage of time spent with P cuff <20 cmH2O (23 % (5-63) versus 43 % (16-60), p = 0.5) were similar during continuous control of P cuff and routine care, respectively. However, the percentage of time spent with P cuff >30 cmH2O was significantly higher during continuous control compared with routine care of tracheal cuff (26 % (14-39) versus 7 % (1-18), p = 0.002). No significant difference was found in P cuff (25 (18-28) versus 21 (18-26), p = 0.17), mean airway pressure (14 (10-17) versus 14 (11-16), p = 0.679), or coefficient of variation of P cuff (19 % (11-26) versus 20 % (11-25), p = 0.679) during continuous control compared with routine care of tracheal cuff, respectively.
conclusionsPressureEasy® did not demonstrate a better control of P cuff between 20 and 30 cmH2O, compared with routine care using a manometer. Moreover, the device use resulted in significantly higher time spent with overinflation of tracheal cuff, which might increase the risk for tracheal ischemic lesions.
trial registrationClinicaltrial.gov: NCT02109003.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.