• Christopher T Chenelle, Jun Oto, Demet Sulemanji, Daniel F Fisher, and Robert M Kacmarek.
• Department of Respiratory Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
• Respir Care. 2015 Feb 1; 60 (2): 183-90.

BackgroundMaintaining endotracheal tube cuff pressure within a narrow range is an important factor in patient care. The goal of this study was to evaluate the IntelliCuff against the manual technique for maintaining cuff pressure during simulated mechanical ventilation with and without movement.MethodsThe IntelliCuff was compared to the manual technique of a manometer and syringe. Two independent studies were performed during mechanical ventilation: part 1, a 2-h trial incorporating continuous mannikin head movement; and part 2, an 8-h trial using a stationary trachea model. We set cuff pressure to 25 cm H2O, PEEP to 10 cm H2O, and peak inspiratory pressures to 20, 30, and 40 cm H2O. Clinical importance was defined as both statistically significant (P<.05) and clinically significant (pressure change [Δ]>10%).ResultsIn part 1, the change in cuff pressure from before to after ventilation was clinically important for the manual technique (P<.001, Δ=-39.6%) but not for the IntelliCuff (P=.02, Δ=3.5%). In part 2, the change in cuff pressure from before to after ventilation was clinically important for the manual technique (P=.004, Δ=-14.39%) but not for the IntelliCuff (P=.20, Δ=5.65%).ConclusionsThere was a clinically important drop in manually set cuff pressure during simulated mechanical ventilation in a stationary model and an even larger drop with movement, but this was significantly reduced by the IntelliCuff in both scenarios. Additionally, we observed that cuff pressure varied directly with inspiratory airway pressure for both techniques, leading to elevated average cuff pressures.Copyright © 2015 by Daedalus Enterprises.

15 keywords...

hide…