As-needed endotracheal suctioning protocol vs a routine endotracheal suctioning in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare two endotracheal suctioning protocols according to morbidity, days of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) and mortality.

Methods

A Pragmatic randomized controlled trial performed at University Hospital Pablo Tobón Uribe, Medellin-Colombia. Forty-five children underwent an as-needed endotracheal suctioning protocol and forty five underwent a routine endotracheal suctioning protocol. Composite primary end point was the presence of hypoxemia, arrhythmias, accidental extubation and heart arrest. A logistic function trough generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to calculate the Relative Risk for the main outcome.

Results

Characteristics of patients were similar between groups. The composite primary end point was found in 22 (47%) of intervention group and 25 (55%) children of control group (RR= 0.84; 95% CI: 0.56-1.25), as well in 35 (5.8%) of 606 endotracheal suctioning performed to intervention group and 48 (7.4%) of 649 performed to control group (OR= 0.80; 95% CI: 0.5-1.3).

Conclusions

There were no differences between an as-needed and a routine endotracheal suctioning protocol.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01069185.

SUBMITTER: Lema-Zuluaga GL 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6084919 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature