Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30507045›Full record

Trial reportJournal of advanced nursing2019

Nursing oral suction intervention to reduce aspiration and ventilator events (NO-ASPIRATE): A randomized clinical trial.

Mary Lou Sole, Steven Talbert, Xin Yan, Daleen Penoyer, Devendra Mehta, Melody Bennett, Aurea Middleton, Kimberly Paige Emery

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of advanced nursing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Intubation Setting, Aspiration, and Ventilator-Associated Conditions.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Pepsin A in Tracheal Secretions From Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2021
    Article
  9. Pulmonary Microbiome of Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: Changes Over Time.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mary Lou SoleUniversity of Central Florida College of Nursing, Orlando, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0295-4329
Steven TalbertUniversity of Central Florida College of Nursing, Orlando, Florida.
Xin YanUniversity of Central Florida College of Sciences, Orlando, Florida.
Daleen PenoyerCenter for Nursing Research and Advanced Nursing Practice, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida.
Devendra MehtaOrlando Health, Orlando, Florida.
Melody BennettOrlando Health, Orlando, Florida.
Aurea MiddletonOrlando Health, Orlando, Florida.
Kimberly Paige EmeryUniversity of Central Florida College of Nursing, Orlando, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8465-6397

Funding

Oral Suction Intervention to Reduce Aspiration and Ventilator Events: NO-ASPIRATER01NR014508 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA · PI SOLE, MARY LOU · 2014 to 2017
$2.3M
NIH HHS 1R01NR014508-01A1NINR NIH HHS R01 NR014508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe primary aim of this study is to compare an oropharyngeal suction intervention versus usual care on microaspiration in intubated patients. Secondary aims are to evaluate the intervention on ventilator-associated condition rates, time to occurrence and compare tracheal-oral α-amylase ratios between groups.

designProspective randomized clinical trial.

methodsThe study received funding from the National Institutes of Health in February 2014 and Institutional Review Board approval in July 2013. Over 4 years, a convenience sample of 600 orally intubated, ventilated adult patients will be enrolled within 24 hr of intubation. The target sample is 400 participants randomized to the two groups. The intervention involves enhanced suctioning of the mouth and oropharynx every 4 hr, while the usual care group receives a sham suctioning. The research team will deliver usual oral care to all patients every 4 hr and collect oral and tracheal specimens every 12 hr, to quantify α-amylase levels to detect aspiration of oral secretions. Study completers must be enrolled at least 36 hr (baseline and three paired samples). Outcomes include α-amylase levels, percent of positive specimens, ventilator-associated conditions, length of stay, ventilator hours, and discharge disposition. DISCUSSION: Enrolment has closed, and data analysis has begun. Subgroup analyses emerged, contributing to future research knowledge. IMPACT: Standardized interventions have reduced but do not address all risk factors associated with ventilator-associated conditions. This study provides the potential to reduce microaspiration and associated sequelae in critically ill, intubated patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCritical IllnessFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealMaleMiddle AgedNursing CarePneumonia, AspirationPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesRespiration, ArtificialRisk FactorsSingle-Blind Methodamylaseaspirationmechanical ventilationnursingpepsinpneumoniaventilator-associated conditions

Identifiers

PMID30507045
PMCPMC6568323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.