Impact of closed versus open tracheal suctioning systems for mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2.9k Downloads
Whether closed tracheal suctioning systems (CTSS) reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) compared with open tracheal suctioning systems (OTSS) is inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared CTSS and OTSS.
PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and a clinical trial registry from inception to October 2014 were searched without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials of CTSS and OTSS that compared VAP in mechanically ventilated adult patients were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of VAP. Secondary outcomes were mortality and length of mechanical ventilation. Data were pooled using the random effects model.
Sixteen trials with 1,929 participants were included. Compared with OTSS, CTSS was associated with a reduced incidence of VAP (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.54–0.87; Q = 26.14; I 2 = 46.4 %). Compared with OTSS, CTSS was not associated with reduction of mortality (RR 0.96; 95 % CI 0.83–1.12; Q = 2.27; I 2 = 0.0 %) or reduced length of mechanical ventilation (WMD −0.45 days; 95 % CI −1.25 to 0.36; Q = 6.37; I 2 = 5.8 %). Trial sequential analysis suggested a lack of firm evidence for 20 % RR reduction in the incidence of VAP. The limitations of this review included underreporting and low quality of the included trials, as well as variations in study procedures and characteristics.
Based on current, albeit limited evidence, it is unlikely that CTSS is inferior to OTSS regarding VAP prevention; however, further trials at low risk of bias are needed to confirm or refute this finding.
KeywordsEndotracheal suctioning Closed tracheal suctioning systems Adults Ventilator-associated pneumonia Meta-analysis Systematic review Trial sequential analysis
The authors would like to thank Dr. Arzu Topeli and Dr. Deepu David for providing relevant information, and would like to thank Ms. Ryoko Ono for editing the figures.
Conflicts of interest
None to declare for any author.
None to declare.
- 19.Subirana M, Sola I, Benito S, (2007) Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews: CD004581Google Scholar
- 32.David D, Samuel P, David T, Keshava SN, Irodi A, Peter JV (2011) An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suctioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care patients. J Crit Care 26:482–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Rabitsch W, Kostler WJ, Fiebiger W, Dielacher C, Losert H, Sherif C, Staudinger T, Seper E, Koller W, Daxbock F, Schuster E, Knobl P, Burgmann H, Frass M, (2004) Closed suctioning system reduces cross-contamination between bronchial system and gastric juices. Anesth Analg 99: 886-892, table of contentsGoogle Scholar
- 38.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 18:1389–1393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Conrad SA, George RB, Romero MD, Owens MW (1989) Comparison of nosocomial pneumonia rates in closed and open tracheal suction systems. Chest 96:184SGoogle Scholar
- 41.Welte T, Ziesing S, Schulte S, Wagner TOF (1997) Incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a comparison of closed versus open endotracheal suctioning. Eur Respir J 10(Suppl):319Google Scholar
- 42.Fakhar HRE, Rezaie K, Kohestani HR (2010) Effect of closed endotracheal suction on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Sci J Kurd Univ Med Sci 15:79–87Google Scholar
- 43.Wang L, Chao YG, Li LM, Bian WS, QG. J, (2006) Clinical observation on the prevention of VAP by the closed type tracheal suctioning. Shan Dong Yi Yao 46:50–51Google Scholar
- 44.Li JQ, Li XY, He J (2007) Influence of different ways of sputumn suctioning on ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Nurs Sci 12:20–21Google Scholar
- 46.Tablan OC, Anderson LJ, Besser R, Bridges C, Hajjeh R, Cdc, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory C, (2004) Guidelines for preventing health-care–associated pneumonia, 2003: recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Recommendations and reports: morbidity and mortality weekly report Recommendations and reports/Centers for Disease Control 53: 1–36Google Scholar
- 48.American Association for Respiratory C (2010) AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated patients with artificial airways 2010. Respir Care 55:758–764Google Scholar
- 49.Dodek P, Keenan S, Cook D, Heyland D, Jacka M, Hand L, Muscedere J, Foster D, Mehta N, Hall R, Brun-Buisson C, Canadian Critical Care Trials G, Canadian Critical Care S (2004) Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ann Intern Med 141: 305-313Google Scholar