• T Clarke, S Evans, P Way, M Wulff, and J Church.
• Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales.
• Aust Crit Care. 1998 Jun 1;11(2):45-50.

AbstractWhile a variety of methods exist for securing an endotracheal tube (ETT), there has been little research on their safety and efficacy. This study aimed to test the equivalence of two methods in three critical care settings by randomly assigning patients to receive either the knot, which requires scissors or blade to remove the ETT tape, or the bow, which can be removed manually. These methods were evaluated by comparing ETT movement, malposition, dislodgement, inadvertent extubation, reduced skin integrity, the cutting of the pilot tube and nurse satisfaction. The 5-month study was conducted in three critical care settings in a large tertiary hospital. Of the 230 patients enrolled, 222 completed the trial. Results, based on a randomised, active control equivalence design, demonstrated the two methods to be equally effective with regard to ETT movement > 2 cm (knot = 21 per cent, bow = 19 per cent; 95 per cent confidence interval for the [2 per cent] difference-8 to 12.5 per cent). The incidence of ETT-related complications was similar for both methods. No pilot tubes were cut using either method. Nurses found that patient mouth care was easier and patient comfort and skin integrity enhanced with the bow method. On the other hand, nurses perceived the knot-tying method to be more secure and easier to apply. Given the equivalence of the two methods, the bow would seem preferable for reasons of safety and comfort.

18 keywords...

hide…