Abstract
Objective
To compare the effectiveness of closed system suctioning (CSS) and open system suctioning (OSS) and the side effects on gas exchange and haemodynamics, during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).
Design
Bench test and porcine lung injury model.
Participants
Twelve bronchoalveolar saline-lavaged pigs.
Setting
Research laboratory in a university hospital.
Interventions
In a mechanical lung, the efficacy of OSS and CSS with 12 and 14 Fr catheters were compared during volume-control ventilation, PCV, CPAP 0 or 10 cmH2O by weighing the suction system before and after aspirating gel in a transparent trachea. Side effects were evaluated in the animals with the same ventilator settings during suctioning of 5, 10 or 20 s duration.
Measurements and results
Suctioning with 12 and 14 Fr catheters was significantly more efficient with OSS (1.9±0.1, 2.8±0.9 g) and with CSS during CPAP 0 cmH2O (1.8±0.2, 4.2±0.5 g) as compared to CSS during PCV (0.2±0.2, 0.8±0.3 g) or CPAP 10 cmH2O (0.0±0.1, 0.7±0.4 g), p<0.01 (means ± SD). OSS and CSS at CPAP 0 cmH2O resulted in a marked decrease in SpO2, mixed venous oxygen saturation and tracheal pressure, p<0.001, but the side effects were considerably fewer during CSS with PCV and CPAP 10 cmH2O, p<0.05.
Conclusions
Irrespective of catheter size, OSS and CSS during CPAP 0 cmH2O were markedly more effective than CSS during PCV and CPAP 10 cmH2O but had worse side effects. However, the side effects lasted less than 5 min in this animal model. Suctioning should be performed effectively when absolutely indicated and the side effects handled adequately.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Closed system suctioning (CSS) was originally introduced for hygienic reasons [1, 2, 3] and as a method of avoiding desaturation during suctioning [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Since the introduction of the open lung concept, prevention of lung derecruitment in acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients during endotracheal suctioning has been focused on [11, 12]. CSS minimises the loss of end-expiratory lung volume during suctioning [13, 14, 15, 16], but there are limited data on its effectiveness and a clinical impression that it is not as effective as open suctioning (OSS) [17, 18, 19].
Regulatory authorities have received several reports of complications of CSS, in which pressures of −500 cmH2O were registered. A combination of large suction catheters and insufficient triggering of the ventilator could lead to extreme negative pressures during CSS [20, 21]. High intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may occur during insertion of the suction catheter if unsuitable ventilator settings are used [21]. Thus, manufacturers were compelled to issue guidelines limiting the catheter to 12 Fr in a 7 mm endotracheal tube and 14 Fr for 8 mm. Reduced vacuum levels and suctioning times were proposed. These new guidelines may have influenced suctioning efficacy.
Research has focused on evaluating and minimising the side effects of suctioning. The primary goal of suctioning is to remove secretions, but little is known about the effectiveness of different techniques, the influence of catheter size and ventilatory modes [17, 18, 22]. The primary objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of closed and open suctioning during controlled conditions in a bench test. The side effects of suctioning on respiration and circulation were assessed in a porcine lung injury model.
Material and methods
Suctioning efficacy
A Biotek ventilator tester, model VT-1 (Bio-Tek Instruments, Vermont, USA) was used as a lung model. Compliance was set at 50 ml/cmH2O. The lung model was fitted with a plastic “trachea”, inner diameter (ID) 18 mm, which was intubated with a cuffed endotracheal tube (Portex Blue Line, SIMS Portex, UK) with 7 or 8 mm ID. A 12 or 14 Fr Trach Care closed suctioning system (CSS) catheter with an outer diameter (OD) of 4.0 or 4.6 mm and a standard ejector vacuum device with an interposed suction bottle, volume 1.0 l (2.5 l in animal experiments), connected to a Servo 900C ventilator were used. Vacuum level was set at −150 mmHg or −300 mmHg. Before intubation, 15 ml of a soap gel, density 1.0 kg m−3, (Hudosil, Stockholms Analytiska Lab, Sweden) was applied in the “trachea”, 2 cm below the endotracheal tube tip with the trachea completely clogged with gel. Open suctioning (OSS) was performed by disconnecting the CSS from the Y-piece. Suctioning was applied for 10 s in accordance with clinical guidelines [23, 24, 25, 26].
Protocol
Before suctioning, the catheter was inserted 2 cm below the tip of the tube. Suction was applied for 10 s without moving the catheter. The amount of gel recovered by suctioning was quantified by weighing the suctioning systems on a precision scale (Sauter RC 1631, August Sauter, Germany). CSS was performed during volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mode (0 or 10 cmH20). Ventilator settings during PCV and VCV mode were: MV 9.0 l, PEEP 5, RR 20, I:E 1:3, trigger –2 cmH2O. The suctioning system and ventilator settings chosen were performed randomly and each intervention repeated six times.
Suctioning side effects
Twelve anaesthetised Landrace pigs, of either gender, weighing 31±3 kg (mean ± SD) were studied in accordance with the NIH guidelines [27] and the protocol approved by Gothenburg University ethics committee. The effects of OSS and CSS with ongoing PCV were compared in the first series of animals (n=6). Due to results from the bench test, a second series of animals was used to evaluate the side effects of OSS and CSS (n=6) during CPAP mode of 0 or 10 cmH2O.
Anaesthesia
The animals were fasted overnight with free access to water. The induction of anaesthesia was performed with ketamine (Ketalar, Parke-Davis, USA) 15 mg kg−1 and midazolam (Dormicum, Roche, Switzerland) 0.2 mg kg−1 intramuscularly. In the first series, this was followed by an intravenous (i.v.) bolus injection of α-chloralose (Merck, Germany) 100 mg kg−1 and fentanyl (Fentanyl, Dumex-Alpharma, Sweden) 2 μg kg−1 before intubation, and anaesthesia was maintained with an infusion of α-chloralose 25–50 mg kg−1 h-1 and fentanyl 3 μg kg−1 h−1. In the second series, the induction of anaesthesia was as above, followed by i.v. sodium pentobarbital (Pentobarbitalnatrium, Apoteket, Sweden) 5–6 mg kg−1 before intubation and maintained with an infusion of sodium pentobarbital 7.5–10 mg kg−1 h−1 and fentanyl 5–7 μg kg−1 h−1. (Due to a change of routines in the animal research laboratory). The pigs were intubated with an endotracheal tube, 7 mm ID. Mechanical ventilation was started with a Servo 900 C ventilator (Siemens, Sweden) with the animals placed supine. Ringer’s solution with glucose 2.5%, 10–15 ml kg−1 h−1 was given intravenously to maintain central venous pressure at 7–10 mmHg. Rectal temperature was kept normal by heating pads.
Measurements
A pulmonary artery catheter (7.5 Fr Swan-Ganz thermodilution catheter, CCO/SvO2, Edward Lifesciences, CA, USA) was inserted via the internal jugular vein for mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) and pulmonary arterial pressure (MPAP). A pulse-oximetry probe was placed on the tail. In the carotid artery, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were measured. Tidal volume (VT) and respiratory compliance (Crs) were monitored with a D-lite flow and airway pressure sensor (Datex-Ohmeda, Instrumentarium, Finland) connected at the Y-piece [27, 28]. Intratracheal pressure (Ptrach) was measured with a 1.6/1.1 mm OD/ID, fluid-filled catheter inserted into the endotracheal tube and connected to a pressure-monitoring set (PVB Medizintechnik, Germany) [29, 30]. The catheter was positioned 2 cm below the tip of the endotracheal tube. End-tidal carbon dioxide concentration (ETCO2) was monitored with an infra-red side-stream capnograph and breath-by-breath airway oxygen concentration was monitored with a para-magnetic analyser. Transducers were connected to an AS/3 monitor (Datex-Ohmeda, Finland) and calibrated according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Physiological data were collected with a sample frequency of 0.1 Hz. Oxygen tension (PaO2) was calculated from pulse-oximetry (SpO2) values using a standard oxyhaemoglobin dissociation curve [31].
Lung injury model
After preparation, repeated bronchoalveolar lavage was performed with 12±2 l isotonic saline at body temperature, 30 ml kg−1 in each wash. During the lavage procedure, the animals were ventilated with PCV, minute ventilation (MV) 7–8, inspired oxygen fraction (FIO2) of 1.0 and PEEP 5–15 cmH2O to prevent desaturation [32]. After lavage, they were allowed to stabilise, ventilated with PCV, MV 7.7±1.2 l, PEEP 9±3 cmH2O, RR 20 and I:E 1:2. The experimental procedure was started when oxygen saturation (SpO2) was stable above 90% with a FIO2 of 0.4±0.1 and steady-state ETCO2. The baseline-estimated PaO2/FIO2 ratio was 197±55 mmHg with PEEP around 10 cmH2O, fulfilling the oxygenation criteria for ALI [12].
Protocol
The first group of animals (n=6) were subjected to four interventions in random order: (1) OSS with 12 Fr catheter (2) OSS with 14 Fr catheter (3) CSS with 12 Fr catheter and (4) CSS with 14 Fr catheter during PCV. For each of the four modes, suctioning was applied for 5, 10 and 20 s consecutively. Measurements were made at baseline, during the first minute after the start, at the point when the most extreme (worst) value was registered and at 5 min. Between manoeuvres the animals were allowed to stabilise and a new baseline was registered when SpO2 and ETCO2 reached steady state, which took 4–10 min. CSS was performed during PCV 26–28 cmH2O, PEEP 9±3 cmH2O, I:E 1:2, RR 20 and trigger level −2 cmH2O.
The second group of animals (n=6) were subjected to three interventions in random order: (1) OSS with 12 Fr catheter (2) CSS with 12 Fr catheter during CPAP 0 cmH2O (3) CSS with 12 Fr catheter during CPAP 10 cmH2O. Suctioning and measurement procedures were performed as above.
Statistical analysis
For comparison of the effects in the bench test, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for pair-wise comparisons between interventions.
The two groups of animals were analysed separately. Within each group the effects of OSS versus CSS were compared between interventions using a two-way ANOVA for repeated measures [33]. In the case of a significant ANOVA finding, dependent variables (baseline vs 1 min values) were compared using single degree of freedom contrast analysis. Probability values less than 0.05, after Bonferroni correction, were considered significant. The values in text, tables and figures are given as means ± SD, if not stated otherwise.
Results
Suctioning efficacy
Open system suctioning was significantly more efficient than CSS with both 12 and 14 Fr catheters during VCV, PCV or CPAP 10 cmH2O (p<0.01). In contrast, CSS during CPAP 0 cmH2O was as effective as OSS with both 12 and 14 Fr catheters. Increasing the vacuum level from −150 to −300 mmHg during CSS and CPAP 10 cmH2O did not improve the removal of secretions. Removal was significantly greater with the 14 Fr catheter compared to the 12 Fr catheter during CSS with CPAP 0 (p<0.01), CPAP 10 (p<0.01), PCV (p<0.05) and VCV (p<0.01) (Fig. 1). Auto-triggering of the ventilator was seen during all CSS procedures. During CSS with positive pressure ventilation (including CPAP 10 cmH2O) in the transparent “trachea”, the triggered inspiratory gas inflow pushed secretions away from the catheter tip.
Side effects of suctioning
Open system suctioning for 5, 10 or 20 s with 12 Fr catheters resulted in SpO2 of 66±7, 59±10 and 54±7%, respectively, worst values during the first minute after the start of suctioning. The corresponding values for CSS during PCV were 78±12, 86±6 and 81±7%. OSS for 10 s using 12 and 14 Fr catheters resulted in SpO2 of 59±10 and 59±8%, and CSS for 10 s during PCV resulted in SpO2 of 86±6 and 77±8% (worst values). SvO2, Ptrach, Crs, VT, HR, MAP and MPAP differed marginally with the various durations of suctioning and catheter sizes (Fig. 2, Tables 1 and 2).
Within 1 min of the start of the 10-s suctioning period with OSS and 12 or 14 Fr catheters, there were marked decreases in SpO2, SvO2, Crs, VT and Ptrach (p<0.001). Ptrach reached sub-atmospheric levels. CSS in PCV mode or CPAP 10 cmH2O with 12 Fr catheters also decreased SpO2, SvO2 and Ptrach, but to a lesser extent (p<0.05). However, during CSS with CPAP 0 cmH2O, SpO2, SvO2, Crs, VT and Ptrach all reached levels similar to those during OSS. Irrespective of open or closed suctioning, all variables returned to baseline within 5 min (Fig. 3, Tables 1, 2 and 3).
Discussion
Using a porcine lung injury model, we have shown that OSS and CSS during 0 cmH2O CPAP significantly decreased arterial and mixed venous oxygen saturation irrespective of the suction catheter size. Tracheal pressure became sub-atmospheric and static respiratory compliance and tidal volumes were markedly reduced. In contrast, CSS during PCV and CPAP 10 cmH2O caused only minor ventilatory and circulatory side effects.
In a bench test we found that the suction interventions which caused only minor side effects in the animal model (CSS with PCV and 10 cmH2O CPAP) were significantly less effective in removing secretions than OSS and CSS at CPAP 0 cmH2O.
Suctioning efficacy of open and closed suctioning techniques
Open system suctioning causes desaturation, lung collapse and bacterial contamination. CSS causes less desaturation and lung collapse as ventilation can continue during suctioning [5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20]. However, the effectiveness of CSS has been questioned [17], which has led to the use of larger catheters, greater vacuum levels and longer suction procedures. A study [18] comparing CSS to OSS in ventilated ICU patients (14 Fr catheter) found no difference in efficacy. The mass of aspirate was measured by weighing. In vivo, condensed water accumulates quickly in the breathing system, the connected closed suctioning catheter and its protective sleeve. Much of the increase measured in weight could thus be due to water [34]. The present study circumvented these problems by determining the efficacy in vitro, which allows the deposition of a standardised volume of “secretions” at a fixed position in the trachea and observation of the suctioning catheter tip as well as movement of the “secretions” during suctioning. The moisture artefact is avoided.
Combes et al. [19] showed that the same amount of secretions were aspirated in both OSS and CSS. However, the amount of aspirate was only estimated according to a four-point scale and the quantity of secretions available for suctioning was unknown. Maggiore and co-workers have evaluated the effect of different suctioning techniques on lung volume and gas exchange [16]. They found that OSS was more harmful in terms of lung derecruitment in ALI/ARDS patients, but did not assess the effectiveness of suctioning. We have shown that techniques that cause decreases in Ptrach, Crs and VT in vivo (OSS and CSS during CPAP 0 cmH2O) remove more secretions in vitro than CSS. During OSS, resistance to the suction flow from room air towards the suction catheter tip in the tube is greater than that from the lungs towards the suction catheter tip because the cross-sectional area of the trachea is about 250 mm2 and the area between the inner surface of a 7 mm ID endotracheal tube and a 12 Fr (4 mm OD) suction catheter is 35–13 mm2=22 mm2. Gas is thus aspirated from the lung rather than from room air. During CSS with normal trigger sensitivity, sub-atmospheric lung pressures are avoided, and thus CSS has fewer side effects. The ventilator is triggered at the start of suctioning, which helps overcome the resistance of the endotracheal tube with the suction catheter inside and also feeds the suction catheter with gas, minimising suction from the airway below the suction catheter tip.
However, during CSS with positive pressure ventilation (including CPAP 10 cmH2O) in the transparent “trachea”, the triggered inspiratory gas inflow can be seen to push secretions away from the catheter tip. Conversely, during OSS, gas aspirated from the lung will facilitate the movement of secretions towards the suction catheter. Finally, the rapid change in lung volume following disconnection of the ventilator for OSS may initiate a cough, moving secretions towards the suction catheter. During CSS, more ventilator gas is aspirated and thus there is less likelihood of movement of the secretions from the lungs.
Different results were obtained for CPAP 0 and 10 cmH2O. With the ventilator set at CPAP 0 cmH2O the flow needed to keep the ventilator pressure at zero is small. However, with CPAP 10 the inspiratory valve delivers enough flow to keep the pressure at 10 cmH2O and, during suctioning, the flow needed to maintain CPAP is much greater. This higher flow feeds the suction catheter with gas and blows tracheal secretions distally out of reach of the suction catheter so that the suction is relatively ineffective. There may be variations in ventilator behaviour in this respect. A modern ventilator with a faster response and more adequate flow adjustment should deliver gas as fast in CPAP 0 as in CPAP 10 cmH2O, possibly decreasing both side effects and suctioning efficacy. This needs further studies.
Side effects of suctioning
Our lung injury model is a simple surfactant-deficiency model. The level of lung injury was estimated by conversion of SpO2 values to PaO2 values, fulfilling ALI criteria. The minor respiratory effects of CSS during PCV and VCV have been reported previously [13, 16, 20]. Our findings agree with these reports and also with that of Brochard et al., where constant flow oxygen was insufflated through small channels in an endotracheal tube during open suctioning [35], preventing the fall in arterial oxygen saturation. The effect was explained by the insufflation leading to a tracheal (and alveolar) pressure of around 10 cmH2O, which probably prevented lung collapse. We achieved the same results by setting the ventilator at CPAP 10 cmH2O during CSS. However, using CPAP 0 cmH2O provides none of these advantages, as the only gas available for suctioning is the gas in the lungs.
It may seem surprising that varying suction duration, (5, 10 and 20 s) and suction catheter size produced little difference in side effects. This might be explained by the surfactant-depleted lungs of the pigs being prone to rapid collapse.
Study limitations
In the bench test we cannot study any effects of diaphragmatic movements when the ventilator is disconnected from the patient. This can only be studied in patients and the effect will vary with sedation level and end-expiratory lung volume. In the animal side effect part of our study we have used a relatively small number of animals and a simple lung injury model which is not totally comparable with ALI/ARDS patients. This could be an explanation for the little difference found in side effects among the various suction durations and catheter sizes.
We did not sample arterial blood gases at baseline, but used SpO2 values at baseline as an estimation of oxygen saturation instead.
Clinical considerations
By combining in vitro and in vivo methods, we standardised the comparison of open and closed systems and their side effects. Although the results of our study must be interpreted with caution, it seems that tracheal secretions cannot be effectively removed without inducing lung collapse and deterioration of gas exchange, i.e. by OSS or CSS during CPAP 0 cmH2O. The surfactant-deficiency model of lung injury may cause the lungs to collapse extremely rapidly during suctioning but also to expand easily again without a special recruitment manoeuvre. Such collapse in ALI/ARDS patients is a severe disadvantage. It is therefore very important to suction only when necessary and to use effective methods for suctioning. Furthermore, ALI/ARDS patients’ lungs may be more difficult to expand and suctioning should, perhaps, be followed by a recruitment manoeuvre to re-inflate the lungs [36].
At present we lack sufficient outcome studies of suctioning to know whether CSS is superior to OSS [37, 38]. There are also no clear data available on how aggressive suctioning policies need to be in order to manage ventilator patients [22, 26]. In the presence of a clear indication for suctioning, such as bubbling secretions in the trachea, OSS may be the method of choice. CSS, originally advocated for hygienic reasons, is possibly less effective and may have to be repeated more frequently.
References
Ritz R, Scott LR, Coyle MB, Pierson DJ (1986) Contamination of a multiple-use suction catheter in a closed-circuit system compared to contamination of a disposable, single-use suction catheter. Respir Care 31:1086–1091
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 18:1389–1393
Cobley M, Atkins M, Jones PL (1991) Environmental contamination during tracheal suction. A comparison of disposable conventional catheters with a multiple-use closed system device. Anaesthesia 46:957–961
Brown SE, Stansbury DW, Merrill EJ, Linden GS, Light RW (1983) Prevention of suctioning-related arterial oxygen desaturation. Comparison of off-ventilator and on-ventilator suctioning. Chest 83:621–627
Craig CK, Benson MS, Pierson DJ (1984) Prevention of arterial oxygen desaturation during closed-airway endotracheal suction: effect of ventilator mode. Respir Care 29:1013–1018
Carlon GC, Fox SJ, Ackerman NJ (1987) Evaluation of a closed-tracheal suction system. Crit Care Med 15:522–525
Clark AP, Winslow EH, Tyler DO, White KM (1990) Effects of endotracheal suctioning on mixed venous oxygen saturation and HR in critically ill adults. Heart Lung 19:552–557
Harshbarger SA, Hoffman LA, Zullo TG, Pinsky MR (1992) Effects of a closed tracheal suction system on ventilatory and cardiovascular parameters. Am J Crit Care 1:57–61
Johnson KL, Kearney PA, Johnson SB, Niblett JB, MacMillan NL, McClain RE (1994) Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning: costs and physiologic consequences. Crit Care Med 22:658–666
Weitl J, Bettstetter H (1994) Indication for use of the closed suction system in respiratory therapy with high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure. Anaesthesist 43:359–363
Lachmann B (1992) Open up the lung and keep the lung open. Intensive Care Med 18:319–321
Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, Lamy M, LeGall JR, Morris A, Spragg R (1994) Report of the American-European consensus conference on ARDS: definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes and clinical trial coordination. The Consensus Committee. Intensive Care Med 20:225–232
Cereda M, Villa F, Colombo E, Greco G, Nacoti M, Pesenti A (2001) Closed system endotracheal suctioning maintains lung volume during volume-controlled mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 27:648–654
Lee CK, Ng KS, Tan SG, Ang R (2001) Effect of different endotracheal suctioning systems on cardiorespiratory parameters of ventilated patients. Ann Acad Med Singapore 30:239–244
Baun MM, Stone KS, Rogge JA (2002) Endotracheal suctioning: open versus closed with and without positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Nurs Q 25:13–26
Maggiore SM, Lellouche F, Pigeot J, Taille S, Deye N, Durrmeyer X, Richard JC, Mancebo J, Lemaire F, Brochard L (2003) Prevention of endotracheal suctioning-induced alveolar derecruitment in acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 167:1215–1224
Noll ML, Hix CD, Scott G (1990) Closed tracheal suction systems: effectiveness and nursing implications. AACN Clin Issues Crit Care Nurs 1:318–328
Witmer M, Hess D, Simmons M (1991) An evaluation of the effectiveness of secretion removal with the Ballard closed-circuit suction catheter. Respir Care 36:844–848
Combes P, Fauvage B, Oleyer C (2000) Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive Care Med 26:878–882
Taggart JA, Dorinsky NL, Sheahan JS (1988) Airway pressures during closed system suctioning. Heart Lung 17:536–542
Stenqvist O, Lindgren S, Karason S, Sondergaard S, Lundin S (2001) Warning! Suctioning. A lung model evaluation of closed suctioning systems. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 45:167–172
Brooks D, Solway S, Graham I, Downes L, Carter M (1999) A survey of suctioning practices among physical therapists, respiratory therapists and nurses. Can Respir J 6:513–520
American Association for Respiratory Care (1993) AARC clinical practice guideline. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated adults and children with artificial airways. Respir Care 38:500–504
Burton GG, Hodgkin JE, Ward JJ (1997) Respiratory care modalities and equipment. In: Hess DR (ed) Respiratory care: a guide to clinical practice, Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 600–609
Pilbeam SP (1998) Airways, circuit changes, medications, positioning and other patient issues. In: Pilbeam SP (ed) Mechanical ventilation: physiological and clinical applications. Mosby, St Louis pp 292–293
Brooks D, Anderson CM, Carter MA, Downes LA, Keenan SP, Kelsey CJ, Lacy JB (2001) Clinical practice guidelines for suctioning the airway of the intubated and nonintubated patient. Can Respir J 8:163–181
National Research Council (U.S.), Commission on Life Sciences. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (1996) Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press. ISBN 0309053773
Nunes S, Takala J (2000) Evaluation of a new module in the continuous monitoring of respiratory mechanics. Intensive Care Med 26:670–678
Karason S, Sondergaard S, Lundin S, Wiklund J, Stenqvist O (2001) Direct tracheal airway pressure measurements are essential for safe and accurate dynamic monitoring of respiratory mechanics. A laboratory study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 45:173–179
Sondergaard S, Karason S, Wiklund J, Lundin S, Stenqvist O (2003) Alveolar pressure monitoring: an evaluation in a lung model and in patients with acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med 29:955–962
Lumb A (2000) Oxygen. In: Lumb A (ed), Nunn’s applied respiratory physiology. Butterworth-Heinemann, Reed Educational and Professional Publishing, Oxford, pp 265–266, 294–297
Lachmann B, Robertson B, Vogel J (1980) In vivo lung lavage as an experimental model of the respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 24:231–236
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1989) Profile analysis of repeated measures. In: Tabachnick BG (ed), Using multivariate statistics. Harper Collins, New York, pp 437–505
Steuer JD, Stone KS, Nickel J, Steinfeld Y (2000) Methodologic issues associated with secretion weight as a dependent variable in research using closed-system suction catheters. Nurs Res 49:295–299
Brochard L, Mion G, Isabey D, Bertrand C, Messadi AA, Mancebo J, Boussignac G, Vasile N, Lemaire F, Harf A (1991) Constant-flow insufflation prevents arterial oxygen desaturation during endotracheal suctioning. Am Rev Respir Dis 144:395–400
Dyhr T, Bonde J, Larsson A (2003) Lung recruitment manoeuvres are effective in regaining lung volume and oxygenation after open endotracheal suctioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care 7:55–62
Cook D, De Jonghe B, Brochard L, Brun-Buisson C (1998) Influence of airway management on ventilator-associated pneumonia: evidence from randomized trials. JAMA 279:781–787
Maggiore SM, Iacobone E, Zito G, Conti C, Antonelli M, Proietti R (2002) Closed versus open suctioning techniques. Minerva Anestesiol 68:360–364
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by grants from Medical Faculty of Gothenburg and Medical Society of Gothenburg.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lindgren, S., Almgren, B., Högman, M. et al. Effectiveness and side effects of closed and open suctioning: an experimental evaluation. Intensive Care Med 30, 1630–1637 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-2153-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-2153-9