Dataset Information

Impact of deep oropharyngeal suctioning on microaspiration, ventilator events, and clinical outcomes: A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To evaluate a deep oropharyngeal suction intervention (NO-ASPIRATE) in intubated patients on microaspiration, ventilator-associated events and clinical outcomes.

Design

Prospective, two-group, single-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Methods

The study was conducted between 2014 - 2017 in 513 participants enroled within 24 hr of intubation and randomized into NO-ASPIRATE or usual care groups. Standard oral care was provided to all participants every 4 hr and deep oropharyngeal suctioning was added to the NO-ASPIRATE group. Oral and tracheal specimens were obtained to quantify α-amylase as an aspiration biomarker.

Results

Data were analysed for 410 study completers enrolled at least 36 hr: NO-ASPIRATE (N = 206) and usual care (N = 204). Percent of tracheal specimens positive for α-amylase, mean tracheal α-amylase levels over time and ventilator-associated events were not different between groups. The NO-ASPIRATE group had a shorter hospital length of stay and a subgroup with moderate aspiration at baseline had significantly lower α-amylase levels across time.

Conclusion

Hospital length of stay was shorter in the NO-ASPIRATE group and a subgroup of intervention participants had lower α-amylase across time. Delivery of standardized oral care to all participants may have been an intervention itself and possibly associated with the lack of significant findings for most outcomes.

Impact

This trial compared usual care to oral care with a deep suctioning intervention on microaspiration and ventilator-associated events, as this has not been systematically studied. Further research on the usefulness of α-amylase as an aspiration biomarker and the role of oral suctioning, especially for certain populations, is indicated.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02284178.

SUBMITTER: Sole ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8331062 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) accounts for 25% of infections in intensive care units. Compared to a long duration (LD) of antibiotic therapy, a short duration (SD) has a comparable clinical efficacy with less antibiotic use and less multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogen emergence, with the exception of documented VAP of non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB), including Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). These results have led the American Thoracic Society to recommend SD therapy for VAP, except for PA-VAP. Thus the beneficial effect of SD therapy in PA-VAP is still a matter of debate. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a short duration of antibiotics (8 days) versus prolonged antibiotic therapy (15 days) in PA-VAP.Methods/designThe impact of the duration of antibiotics on clinical events in patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia (iDIAPASON) trial is a randomized, open-labeled non-inferiority controlled trial, conducted in 34 French intensive care units (ICUs), comparing two groups of patients with PA-VAP according to the duration (8 days or 15 days) of effective antibiotic therapy against PA. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint combining day 90 mortality and PA-VAP recurrence rate during hospitalization in the ICU. Furthermore, durations of mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, as well as number and types of extrapulmonary infections or acquisition of MDR pathogens during the hospitalization in the ICU will be recorded. Recurrence with predefined criteria (clinical suspicion of VAP associated with a positive quantitative culture of a respiratory sample) will be evaluated by two independent experts.DiscussionDemonstrating that an SD (8 days) versus LD (15 days) therapy strategy in PA-VAP treatment is safe and not associated with an increased mortality or recurrence rate could lead to a change in practices and guidelines in the management of antibiotic therapy of this frequent ICU complication. This strategy could lead to decreased antibiotic exposure during hospitalization in the ICU and in turn reduce the acquisition and the spread of MDR pathogens.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02634411 . Registered on 19 November 2015.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate lung injury and diaphragm mis-contraction. The impact of PVA on clinical outcomes has not been systematically evaluated. Effective interventions (except for closed-loop ventilation) for reducing PVA are not well established.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MV (Part A) and the effectiveness of interventions for patients undergoing MV except for closed-loop ventilation (Part B). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP until August 2020. In Part A, we defined asynchrony index (AI) ≥ 10 or ineffective triggering index (ITI) ≥ 10 as high PVA. We compared patients having high PVA with those having low PVA.ResultsEight studies in Part A and eight trials in Part B fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In Part A, five studies were related to the AI and three studies were related to the ITI. High PVA may be associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 5.16 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38 to 7.94; n = 8; certainty of evidence [CoE], low), higher ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.73; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.24; n = 6; CoE, low), and higher hospital mortality (OR, 1.94; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.30; n = 5; CoE, low). In Part B, interventions involving MV mode, tidal volume, and pressure-support level were associated with reduced PVA. Sedation protocol, sedation depth, and sedation with dexmedetomidine rather than propofol were also associated with reduced PVA.ConclusionsPVA may be associated with longer MV duration, higher ICU mortality, and higher hospital mortality. Physicians may consider monitoring PVA and adjusting ventilator settings and sedatives to reduce PVA. Further studies with adjustment for confounding factors are warranted to determine the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes. Trial registration protocols.io (URL: https://www.protocols.io/view/the-impact-of-patient-ventilator-asynchrony-in-adu-bsqtndwn , 08/27/2020).