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

• Published in: Colombia médica (Cali, Colombia) Vol. 49; no. 2
• Main Authors: Lema-Zuluaga, Gloria Lucía, Fernandez-Laverde, Mauricio, Correa-Varela, Ana Marverin, Zuleta-Tobón, John J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Universidad del Valle - Facultad de Salud 04-12-2019
• Subjects: adverse effects; arrhythmias; cardiac; endotraqueal; hypoxia; intubation; pediatric; randomized controlled trial; Suction
• ISSN: 0120-8322

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