ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Ceragenin-Coated Endotracheal Tubes for the Reduction of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Prospective, Longitudinal, Crossover, Interrupted Time, Implementation Study (CEASE VAP Study).
Article in Critical care explorations, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of Ceragenin-coated endotracheal tubes (CSA ETTs) on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill adults and assess feasibility of conducting a multicenter study.
designProspective, crossover, interrupted time series implementation study.
settingA tertiary, medical-surgical-ICU in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 260 mechanically ventilated adults with 100 receiving CSA ETTs and 160 subglottic suction ETTs (SSETTs).
interventionsAfter a run-in period, patients received either CSA ETTs or SSETT according to a four-period crossover implementation study. ETT type was alternated at the hospital level during each study period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe primary outcome was VAP incidence. VAP occurred in 19 of 100 (19%) of patients treated with CSA ETTs and 24 of 160 (15%) with standard ETTs, adjusted relative risk (RR) (95% CI), 1.22 (0.70-2.13), p = 0.40. In secondary analyses, CSA ETT patients had more 28-day antibiotic-free days (mean ± sd: 14.7 ± 10.4 vs.11.8 ± 10.9, p = 0.047), ventilation-free days (15.7 ± 10.7 vs. 12.4 ± 11.5, p = 0.03), and lower ICU (n [%]: 20 (20%) vs. 57 (36%), p = 0.01 and hospital mortality: 25 (25%) vs. 68 (43%), p value of equals to 0.004. The CSA ETT was implemented without major difficulties, and acceptability among clinicians was high. No serious device-related adverse events were reported.
conclusionsAlthough patients treated with CSA ETTs had similar rates of VAP than those receiving SSETT, better secondary clinical outcomes, including mortality occurred with the CSA ETTs. The conduct of this cross-over, implementation study was feasible. There is a need for further research to confirm our findings in a larger, randomized, multicenter study.
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.