Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2024
Endotracheal tube cuff pressure assessment: expectations versus reality.
Trial report in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDamage to the trachea, although rare, is a serious complication in anesthesiology and intensive care. The main mechanism of such injury is a direct mechanical action associated with excessive pressure in the cuff of the endotracheal tube (ETT). The aim of the study was to evaluate the actual pressure in the cuffs during surgical interventions, correlate this measure with the subjective assessment of the anesthesiologist, and compare different methods of inflating the ETT cuff.
methodsNinety patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the study group, the "minimum leakage" technique was used to inflate the cuff. In the control group, the adequacy of pressure was determined by palpation of the cuff balloon. In both groups, the actual pressure was then measured using a mechanical manometer connected to the cuff.
resultsThe average ETT cuff pressure was 30.4 ± 4.9 cmH 2 O (2.98 ± 0.48 kPa) in the study group and 68.9 ± 23.3 cmH 2 O (6.75 ± 2.28 kPa) in the control group. The pressure in the ETT cuffs was within the standard safe range (i.e. 20-30 cmH 2 O) in 2/45 (4.4%) and 23/45 (51.1%) patients in the control and the study group, respectively.
conclusionsIn the majority of cases, the pressure achieved via evaluation by the me-thod of palpation of the control cuff was not adequate. Among various non-mechanical methods of measuring and controlling pressure in the cuff of the intubation tube, the minimum occlusion volume technique deserves attention.
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.