Tracheal suction by closed system without daily change versus open system
- 1.1k Downloads
Tracheal suctioning costs are higher with a closed tracheal suction system (CTSS) than with an open system (OTSS), due to the need for complete daily change as recommended by the manufacturer. However, is it necessary to change the closed system daily?
To evaluate the tracheal suctioning costs and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) using closed system without daily change vs OTSS.
Prospective and randomised study.
An Intensive Care Unit in a university hospital.
Patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
Patients were randomly assigned to CTSS without daily change or OTSS. We used a CTSS that allowed partial or complete change.
Measurements and results
There were no significant differences between both groups of patients (236 with CTSS and 221 with OTSS) in gender, age, diagnosis, APACHE-II score, mortality, number of aspirations per day, percentage of patients who developed VAP (13.9 vs 14.1%) or the number of ventilator-associated pneumonia per 1000 days of mechanical ventilation (14.1 vs 14.6). There were not significant differences in tracheal suctioning costs per patient/day between CTSS vs OTSS (2.3 ± 3.7 vs 2.4 ± 0.5 Euros; p = 0.96); however, when length of mechanical ventilation was lower than 4 days, the cost was higher with CTSS than with OTSS (7.2 ± 4.7 vs 1.9 ± 0.6 Euros; p < 0.001); and when length of mechanical ventilation was higher than 4 days, the cost was lower with CTSS than with OTSS (1.6 ± 2.8 vs 2.5 ± 0.5 Euros; p < 0.001).
CTSS without daily change is the optimal option for patients needing tracheal suction longer than 4 days.
KeywordsClosed tracheal suction system Open tracheal suction system Ventilator-associated pneumonia Tracheal suctioning costs Nosocomial pneumonia Efficiency
We thank the staff nurses for their inestimable collaboration on this study.
- 1.Demers RR (1982) Complications of endotracheal suctioning procedures. Respir Care 27:453–457Google Scholar
- 4.Fineberg C, Cohn HE, Gibbon JH (1960) Cardiac arrest during nasotracheal aspiration. J Am Med Assoc 174:410–412Google Scholar
- 17.Castling D, Greenough A, Giffin F (1995) Neonatal endotracheal suction: comparison of open and closed suction techniques. Br Med J Intensive Care 5:218–221Google Scholar
- 19.Máttar JA, Sproesser AJ, Gomes MV (1992) A comparative study of oxygen transport during open and closed methods of tracheal suctioning. Intensive Crit Care Digest 11:57–58Google Scholar
- 24.Deppe SA, Kelly JW, Thoi LL, Chudy JH, Longfield RN, Ducey JP, Truwit CL, Antopol MR (1990) Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: prospective, randomized study. Crit Care Med 18:1389–1393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004) Guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia. MMRW 53:1–36Google Scholar
- 37.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997) Guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia. MMRW 46:1–79Google Scholar