- Poster presentation
- Open access
- Published:
Influence of catheter diameter, endotracheal tube diameter, suction pressure, and PEEP on the tracheal pressure and lung volume during endotracheal suctioning using a lung model
Critical Care volume 16, Article number: P118 (2012)
Introduction
Endotracheal suctioning (ETS) is frequently performed in the ICU for clearing bronchial secretions in intubated and ventilated patients. However, research shows that subatmospheric pressures in the trachea and decreases in lung volume are measured during ETS when unfavourable parameters are chosen, causing complications (for example, atelectasis) [1, 2]. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the parameters: area ratio 'catheter/endotracheal tube', suction pressure, type of ventilation, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on tracheal pressure and lung volume during ETS.
Methods
A lung model (two intersurgical balloons of 2 litres each and an artificial trachea with a 25 mm internal diameter) for spontaneous breathing and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) was designed. Spontaneous breathing was simulated by varying the pressure inside the chamber in which the balloons were mounted by an electronically controlled syringe. During PCV, a Servo 300 ventilator was added. An open suction system (VBM, 5 mm suction gap) was used. After insertion of the catheter, suction (pressures ranged from 20 to 65 kPa) was applied for 15 seconds during withdrawal, as used in clinical practice. During spontaneous breathing the parameters pressure and area ratio (79%, 58%, 34%, 25%, 13%) were varied, while during PCV the PEEP was varied too. Each setting was repeated three times and the mean results were used for analysis.
Results
For spontaneous breathing (n = 45) the mean tracheal pressure and lung volume decreased strongly when the area ratio and/or suction pressure increased (for example, mean tracheal pressure -13 ± 1.3 cmH2O compared to atmospheric pressure, and lung volume -524 ± 37 ml using 20 kPa suction pressure and area ratio 0.58), the first having the greater influence. Similar results (n = 84) were found for PCV (for example, 22 ± 0.35 cmH2O and -536 ± 137 ml, using 20 kPa suction pressure, area ratio 0.58 and PEEP 20 cmH2O).
Conclusion
During endotracheal suctioning the area ratio (between the catheter and the endotracheal tube) and the applied suction pressure should be minimal to avoid high pressure and lung volume losses.
References
Wood CJ, et al.: Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 1998, 14: 124-136. 10.1016/S0964-3397(98)80375-3
Pedersen CM, et al.: Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2009, 25: 21-30. 10.1016/j.iccn.2008.05.004
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Snijders, K., Spronk, P., Fiks, T. et al. Influence of catheter diameter, endotracheal tube diameter, suction pressure, and PEEP on the tracheal pressure and lung volume during endotracheal suctioning using a lung model. Crit Care 16 (Suppl 1), P118 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10725
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10725