Journals / İzmir Dr. Behçet Uz Çocuk Hastanesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of Two Different Endotracheal Aspiration Methods in Premature Infants

Prematüre Bebeklerde İki Farklı Endotrakeal Aspirasyon Yönteminin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
131–136
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: In our study, any relationship between open and closed endotracheal aspiration and prematurity-related morbidities in preterm infants with birth weighst less than 1500 g.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of our study was to compare open and closed endotracheal aspiration methods in premature infants in terms of neonatal infections and premature morbidities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: Between January 2016 and December 2016, the records of preterm infants with a birth weight under 1500 g were retrospectively reviewed in our neonatal intensive care unit.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In our study, any relationship between open and closed endotracheal aspiration and prematurity-related morbidities in preterm infants with birth weighst less than 1500 g.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our study was to compare open and closed endotracheal aspiration methods in premature infants in terms of neonatal infections and premature morbidities. Method: Between January 2016 and December 2016, the records of preterm infants with a birth weight under 1500 g were retrospectively reviewed in our neonatal intensive care unit. Infants in the first 72 hours of life requiring intubation and at least 24 hours of mechanical ventilation were included in analysis. In addition to demographic and clinical data of infants, premature morbidities, total number and types of endotracheal aspirations and duration of respiratory support were recorded. Results: The data of infants who underwent open (n=39) or closed aspiration (n=38) were analyzed. Demographic findings were similar in both groups. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of total number of aspirations, extubation failure, duration of respiratory support, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, ventilator-associated pneumonia and late onset neonatal sepsis. In addition, there was no difference in terms of other morbidities of prematurity, hospital stay and mortality. Conclusion: In our study, any relationship between open and closed endotracheal aspiration and prematurity-related morbidities in preterm infants with birth weighst less than 1500 g.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı, prematüre bebeklerde açık ve kapalı endotrakeal aspirasyon yöntemlerini, neonatal enfeksiyonlar ve prematüre morbiditeleri açısından karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Yenidoğan yoğun bakım ünitemizde Ocak 2016-Aralık 2016 tarihleri arasında, doğum ağırlığı 1500 g altında olan bebeklerin kayıtları retrospektif olarak tarandı. Yaşamın ilk 72 saatinde entübasyon gereksinimi olup, en az 24 saat mekanik ventilatör gereksinimi olan bebekler çalışmaya dahil edildi. Bebeklerin demografik ve klinik verileri ile birlikte, prematüre morbiditeleri, hangi endotrakeal aspirasyon yönteminin kullanıldığı, toplam aspirasyon sayıları ve solunum destek süreleri kaydedildi. Bulgular: Açık aspirasyon uygulanan 39, kapalı aspirasyon uygulanan 38 bebeğin verileri analiz edildi. Demografik bulgular iki grup açısından benzer olarak bulundu. Toplam aspirasyon sayısı, ekstübasyon başarısızlığı, solunum destek süreleri, bronkopulmoner displazi, ventilatör ilişkili pnömoni ve geç neonatal sepsis açısından iki grup arasında fark saptanmadı. Ayrıca diğer prematüre morbiditeleri, hastanede kalış zamanı ve mortalite açısından da fark saptanmadı. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda doğum ağırlığı 1.500 g altında olan prematüre bebeklerde, açık veya kapalı endotrakeal aspirasyon yöntemi uygulanması ile prematüre morbiditeleri arasında ilişki saptanmamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞİMŞEK, G. K., BÜYÜKTİRYAKİ, M., OKUR, N., KUTMAN, H. G. K., CANPOLAT, F. E. (2019). Comparison of Two Different Endotracheal Aspiration Methods in Premature Infants. İzmir Dr. Behçet Uz Çocuk Hastanesi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 131–136. https://ajindex.com/articles/177370

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Cordero L, Sananes M, Ayers LW. Comparison of a closed (Trach Care MAC) with an open endotracheal suction system in small premature infants. J Perinatol. 2000;20:151-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7200330
  2. Morrow BM, Argent AC. A comprehensive review of pediatric endotracheal suctioning: Effects, indications, and clinical practice. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2008;9:465-77. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0b013e31818499cc
  3. Taylor JE, Hawley G, Flenady V, Woodgate PG. Tracheal suctioning without disconnection in intubated ventilated neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(12) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003065.pub2
  4. Kiraly NJ, Tingay DG, Mills JF, Dargaville PA, Copnell B. Volume not guaranteed: closed endotracheal suction compromises ventilation involume-targeted mode. Neonatology. 2011;99:78-82. https://doi.org/10.1159/000316854
  5. Kalyn A, Blatz S, Sandra Feuerstake, Paes B, Bautista C. Closed suctioning of intubated neonates maintains better physiologic stability: a randomized trial. J Perinatol. 2003;23:218-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210883
  6. Deppe SA, Kelly JW, Thoi LL, Chudy JH, Longfield RN, Ducey JP, Truwit CL,Antopol MR. Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality incritically ill patients using a Trach Care closed-suction system versus anopen-suction system: prospective, randomized study. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:1389-93. ttps://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199012000-00016
  7. Gaynes RP, Edwards JR, Jarvis WR, Culver DH, Tolson JS, Martone WJ. Nosocomial infections among neonates in high-risk nurseries in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Pediatrics. 1996;98:357-61.
  8. Hagler DA, Traver GA. Endotracheal saline and suction catheters: sources of lower airway contamination. Am J Crit Care. 1994;3:444-7.
  9. Cobley M, Atkins M, Jones PL. Environmental contamination during tracheal suction. A comparison of disposable conventional catheters with a multiple-use closed system device. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:957-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1991.tb09858.x
  10. Hoellering AB, Copnell B, Dargaville PA, Mills JF, Morley CJ, Tingay DG. Lung volume and cardiorespiratory changes during open and closed endotracheal suction in ventilated newborn infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93:F436-41. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.132076
  11. Pirr SM, Lange M, Hartmann C, Bohnhorst B, Peter C. Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning in extremely low-birthweight neonates: a randomized, crossover trial. Neonatology.