ArticleRespiratory care2023
Efficacy of an Automated Secretion Removal Technology at Different Inspiratory Pressures.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Prospective, Longitudinal Study Evaluating the Efficacy of an Automated Secretion Removal Technology.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Automated Secretion Removal Technology: Will You See It in Your ICU?Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Closed-loop anesthesia: foundations and applications in contemporary perioperative medicine.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2024Review
- Exploring Automated Secretion Removal Technology: Balancing Promise With Caution.Respiratory care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.