↓ Skip to main content

In vitro evaluation of the method effectiveness to limit inflation pressure cuffs of endotracheal tubes

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In vitro evaluation of the method effectiveness to limit inflation pressure cuffs of endotracheal tubes
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.06.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael de Macedo Coelho, Thiago Trigueiro Morais de Paiva, Ligia Andrade da Silva Telles Mathias

Abstract

Cuffs of tracheal tubes protect the lower airway from aspiration of gastric contents and facilitate ventilation, but may cause many complications, especially when the cuff pressure exceeds 30cm H2O. This occurs in over 30% of conventional insufflations, so it is recommended to limit this pressure. In this study we evaluated the in vitro effectiveness of a method of limiting the cuff pressure to a range between 20 and 30cm H2O. Using an adapter to connect the tested tube to the anesthesia machine, the relief valve was regulated to 30cm H2O, inflating the cuff by operating the rapid flow of oxygen button. There were 33 trials for each tube of three manufacturers, of five sizes (6.5-8.5), using three times inflation (10, 15 and 20s), totaling 1485 tests. After inflation, the pressure obtained was measured with a manometer. Pressure >30cm H2O or <20cm H2O were considered failures. There were eight failures (0.5%, 95% CI: 0.1-0.9%), with all by pressures <20cm H2O and after 10s inflation (1.6%, 95% CI: 0 5-2.7%). One failure occurred with a 6.5 tube (0.3%, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.9%), six with 7.0 tubes (2%, 95% CI: 0.4-3.6%), and one with a 7.5 tube (0.3%, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.9%). This method was effective for inflating tracheal tube cuffs of different sizes and manufacturers, limiting its pressure to a range between 20 and 30cm H2O, with a success rate of 99.5% (95% CI: 99.1-99.9%).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%