ArticleAnnals of intensive care2021
Rapid-flow expulsion maneuver in subglottic secretion clearance to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized controlled study.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02032849 (Air-impingement Manipulation to Clear Subglottic Secretion Compared With Drainage Tube in Prolonged Intubated Patients, a Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Air-impingement Manipulation to Clear Subglottic Secretion Compared With Drainage Tube in Prolonged Intubated Patients, a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of subglottic secretion drainage in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Volume-based subglottic secretion drainage: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Problems Related to Endotracheal Intubation as an Input for the Design of a New Endotracheal Tube.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Exploring Automated Secretion Removal Technology: Balancing Promise With Caution.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFollowing endotracheal intubation, clearing secretions above the endotracheal tube cuff decreases the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); therefore, subglottic secretion drainage (SSD) is widely advocated. Our group developed a novel technique to remove the subglottic secretions, the rapid-flow expulsion maneuver (RFEM). The objective of this study was to explore the effectiveness and safety of RFEM compared with SSD.
methodsThis study was a single-center, prospective, randomized and controlled trial, conducted at Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. The primary outcome was the incidence of VAP, assessed for non-inferiority.
resultsPatients with an endotracheal tube allowing drainage of subglottic secretions (n = 241) were randomly assigned to either the RFEM group (n = 120) or SSD group (n = 121). Eleven patients (9.17%) in the RFEM group and 13 (10.74%) in the SSD group developed VAP (difference, - 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 9.20 6.03]), as the upper limit of 95% CI was not greater than the pre-defined non-inferiority limit (10%), RFEM was declared non-inferior to SSD. There were no statistically significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU mortality, or ICU length of stay and costs between groups. In terms of safety, no accidental extubation or maneuver-related barotrauma occurred in the RFEM group. The incidence of post-extubation laryngeal edema and reintubation was similar in both groups.
conclusionsRFEM is effective and safe, with non-inferiority compared to SSD in terms of the incidence of VAP. RFEM could be an alternative method in first-line treatment of respiratory ICU patients. Trial registration This study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration Number: NCT02032849, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02032849 ); registered on January 2014.
Indexed as
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.