
doi: 10.1093/bja/aem403
pmid: 18250225
We have assessed the evidence that closed tracheal suction systems (TSS) prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify RCTs that compared closed with open TSS for the management of mechanically ventilated (MV) patients. Nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference in the incidence of VAP between patients managed with closed and open TSS [odds ratio (OR)=0.96, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.72-1.28]. There was no heterogeneity among the eligible trials (I2=0, 95% CI 0-0.65). The compared groups did not differ with respect to mortality (OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.39) or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay [two RCTs: 12.3 (sd 1.1) vs 11.5 (1.4) days and 15.6 (13.4) vs 19.9 (16.7) days]. Suctioning with closed systems was associated with longer MV duration (weighted mean differences: 0.65 days, 95% CI 0.28-1.03) and higher colonization of the respiratory tract (OR=2.88, 95% CI 1.50-5.52) than open TSS. The available evidence suggests that closed as opposed to open TSS usage did not provide any benefit on VAP incidence, mortality, or ICU stay of MV patients.
Critical Care, Respiratory System, Costs and Cost Analysis, Intubation, Intratracheal, Humans, Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated, Length of Stay, Suction, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Critical Care, Respiratory System, Costs and Cost Analysis, Intubation, Intratracheal, Humans, Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated, Length of Stay, Suction, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 83 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
