Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37117014›Full record

ArticleRespiratory care2023

Efficacy of an Automated Secretion Removal Technology at Different Inspiratory Pressures.

Anne H Nielsen, Dan S Karbing, Christoffer G Sølling, Robert R Winding, Stephen E Rees, Nilanjan Dey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Anne H NielsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.
Dan S KarbingRespiratory and Critical Care Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Gistrup, Denmark.
Christoffer G SøllingDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Regional Hospital Viborg, Viborg, Denmark.
Robert R WindingDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.
Stephen E ReesRespiratory and Critical Care Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Gistrup, Denmark. sr@hst.aau.dk.
Nilanjan DeyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotracheal suctioning is resource demanding, causes patient discomfort, and is associated with adverse effects. A new artificial cough method has been developed for automated secretion removal by using rapid deflation and inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff during the inspiratory phase of mechanical ventilation. This method has been evaluated in a bench model and in animals but not in human subjects. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this method can remove the need for endotracheal suctioning in subjects and whether this is dependent on ventilator settings.

methodsThis prospective, non-controlled study recruited 20 subjects on invasive mechanical ventilation. On the clinical need for endotracheal suctioning, the automatic cough procedure was applied 3 times over 30 s, with this repeated at higher ventilatory pressure and lower respiratory frequency if considered unsuccessful. Success was determined by removal of the clinical need for suctioning. Subject safety and comfort was measured by using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool before and after the procedure, and negative effects were recorded. To assess intra-subject variability, the procedure was performed on 3 different occasions for each subject.

resultsThe procedure was successful in 18 of 20 subjects (90%), with mean subject success rates of 53% at low settings (peak inspiratory pressure 21.8 ± 3.8 cm H

conclusionsThis study illustrated the potential for significant reduction in the clinical need for endotracheal suctioning after the use of an automated artificial cough procedure at both low and high peak inspiratory pressures, and that was well tolerated.

Indexed as

CoughRespiration, ArtificialAnimalsHumansIntubation, IntratrachealPainProspective StudiesVentilators, Mechanicalartificial coughendotracheal suctioningmechanical ventilationTracheal secretions

Identifiers

PMID37117014
PMCPMC10589113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.