In mechanically ventilated subjects, intra-tracheal secretions can be aspirated with either open suction systems (OSS) or closed suction systems (CSS). In contrast to CSS, conventional OSS require temporarily disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, which briefly diminishes PEEP and oxygen supply. On the other hand, CSS are more expensive and less effective at aspirating secretions. Thus, it was hypothesized that the 2 procedures differentially affect pulmonary and cardiovascular parameters after suction.
METHODS:
Subjects in the ICU (N = 66) were quasi-randomized for initial treatment with OSS or CSS in a crossover design. To compare the potential for these suction systems to compromise cardiorespiratory stability, changes in cardiopulmonary physiology were assessed from before to just after use of each suction system (three 10-s aspirations).
RESULTS:
For most pulmonary and cardiovascular parameters (ie, peak inspiratory pressure, airway resistance, pressure plateau, heart rate, and arterial pressures), the effects of aspiration inversely correlated with baseline values for that parameter, with a similar regression slope between suction systems. However, when controlling for baseline values, OSS caused significantly greater increases in airway resistance and peak inspiratory pressure (P < .001 and < .01 vs CSS, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
Elevated airway resistance prior to endotracheal suction may justify use of a CSS and contraindicate a conventional OSS in mechanically ventilated subjects. Adoption of this approach into clinical guidelines may prevent suction-induced pulmonary injury in subjects, especially for those with underlying diseases involving increased airway resistance or increased alveolar pressure. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03256214.)
CarrothersKM, BarrJ, SpurlockB, RidgelyMS, DambergCL, ElyEW. Contextual issues influencing implementation and outcomes associated with an integrated approach to managing pain, agitation, and delirium in adult ICUs. Crit Care Med, 2013; 41(9 Suppl 1):S128–S135.
2.
VieiraJE, SilvaAR, GarciaDJ. Patterns of ventilation in anesthesia: a retrospective study. Rev Bras Anestesiol, 2002; 52(6):756–763.
3.
JohnsonKL, KearneyPA, JohnsonSB, NiblettJB, MacMillanNL, McClainRE. Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning: costs and physiologic consequences. Crit Care Med, 1994; 22(4):658–666.
4.
KonradF, SchreiberT, Brecht-KrausD, GeorgieffM. Mucociliary transport in ICU patients. Chest, 1994; 105(1):237–241.
5.
MaggioreSM, LelloucheF, PignataroC, GirouE, MaitreB, RichardJC, et al. Decreasing the adverse effects of endotracheal suctioning during mechanical ventilation by changing practice. Respir Care, 2013; 58(10):1588–1597.
Sánchez-GarcíaM, SantosP, Rodríguez-TrigoG, Martínez-SagastiF, Fariña-GonzálezT, del Pino-RamírezÁ, et al. Preliminary experience on the safety and tolerability of mechanical “insufflation-exsufflation” in subjects with artificial airway. Intensive Care Med Exp, 2018; 6(1):8.
8.
JongerdenIP, RoversMM, GrypdonckMH, BontenMJ. Open and closed endotracheal suction systems in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med, 2007; 35(1):260–270.
9.
NakstadER, OpdahlH, HeyerdahlF, BorchseniusF, SkjønsbergOH. Manual ventilation and open suction procedures contribute to negative pressures in a mechanical lung model. BMJ Open Respir Res, 2017; 4(1):e000176.
10.
CombesP, FauvageB, OleyerC. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive Care Med, 2000; 26(7):878–882.
11.
BruschettiniM, ZappettiniS, MojaL, CalevoMG. Frequency of endotracheal suctioning for the prevention of respiratory morbidity in ventilated newborns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016; 3:CD011493.
12.
Bhat YellanthoorR, RamdasV. Frequency and intensive care related risk factors of pneumothorax in ventilated neonates. Pulm Med, 2014; 2014:727323.
13.
JawMC, SoongWJ, ChenSJ, HwangB. Pneumothorax: a complication of deep endotracheal tube suction: report of 3 cases. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei), 1991; 48(4):313–317.
14.
CorleyA, SharpeN, CaruanaLR, SpoonerAJ, FraserJF. Lung volume changes during cleaning of closed endotracheal suction catheters: a randomized crossover study using electrical impedance tomography. Respir Care, 2014; 59(4):497–503.
15.
FrengleyRW, CloseyDN, SleighJW, TorranceJM. The effect of closed system suction on airway pressures when using the Servo 300 ventilator. Crit Care Resusc, 2001; 3(4):230–235.
16.
JongerdenIP, KeseciogluJ, SpeelbergB, BuitingAG, Leverstein-van HallMA, BontenMJ. Changes in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation after open and closed endotracheal suctioning: a prospective observational study. J Crit Care, 2012; 27(6):647–654.
17.
AvenaMJ, CarvalhoWB, BeppuOS. Assessment of respiratory mechanics and oxygenation before and after aspiration of secretion in children undergoing mechanical ventilation. Rev Assoc Med Bras, 2003; 49(2):156–161.
18.
PeriniR, VeicsteinasA. Heart rate variability and autonomic activity at rest and during exercise in various physiological conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2003; 90(3-4):317–325.
19.
MasryA, WilliansPF, ChipmanDW, KratohvilJP, KamarekRM. The impact of close endotracheal system suctions on mechanical ventilator performance. Respir Care, 2005; 50(3):345–353.
20.
KaurS, SinghS, GuptaR, BindraT. Foreign body blocking closed circuit suction catheter: an unusual cause of retained tracheal secretions in a mechanically ventilated patient. Int J Appl Basic Med Res, 2014; 4(1):50–52.
PedersenCM, Rosendahl-NielsenM, HjermindJ, EgerodI. Endotracheal suctioning of the adult intubated patient–what is the evidence?. Intensive Crit Care Nurs, 2009; 25(1):21–30.
23.
SoleML, BennettM, AshworthS. Clinical indicators for endotracheal suctioning in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Am J Crit Care, 2015; 24(4):318–324.
24.
FreytagCC, ThiesFL, KönigW, WelteT. Prolonged application of closed in-line suction catheters increases microbial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and bacterial growth on catheter surface. Infection, 2003; 31(1):31–37.
25.
SubiranaM, SolàI, BenitoS. Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007(4):CD004581.
26.
DongL, YuT, YangY, QiuHB. The effects and safety of closed versus open tracheal suction system: a meta analysis. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi, 2012; 51(10):763–768.
27.
KuriyamaA, UmakoshiN, FujinagaJ, TakadaT. Impact of closed versus open tracheal suctioning systems for mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med, 2015; 41(3):402–411.
28.
AfshariA, SafariM, OshvandiK, SoltanianAR. The effect of the open and closed system suctions on cardiopulmonary parameters: time and costs in patients under mechanical ventilation. Nurs Midwifery Stud, 2014; 3(2):e14097.
29.
OverendTJ, AndersonCM, BrooksD, CicuttoL, KeimM, McAuslanD, et al. Updating the evidence-base for suctioning adult patients: a systematic review. Can Respir J, 2009; 16(3):e6–e17.
30.
CeredaM, VillaF, ColomboE, GrecoG, NacotiM, PesentiA. Closed system endotracheal suctioning maintains lung volume during volume-controlled mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med, 2001; 27(4):648–654.
31.
RuanSY, LinFC, HuangCT, KuSC, WuHD. Effect of incomplete withdrawal of a closed-suction catheter on airway resistance. Intensive Care Med, 2015; 41(8):1496–1497.
32.
BourgaultAM, BrownCA, HainsSM, ParlowJL. Effects of endotracheal tube suctioning on arterial oxygen tension and heart rate variability. Biol Res Nurs, 2006; 7(4):268–278.
33.
CorleyA, CaruanaL, BarnettA, FraserJ. Open and closed suctioning result in significant lung derecruitment: a randomised controlled study using electrical impedance tomography. Australian Critical Care, 2011; 24(1):62–63.
34.
AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated patients with artificial airways 2010. Respir Care, 2010; 55(6):758–764.
35.
LasockiS, LuQ, SartoriusA, FouillatD, RemerandF, RoubyJJ. Open and closed-circuit endotracheal suctioning in acute lung injury: efficiency and effects on gas exchange. Anesthesiology, 2006; 104(1):39–47.
36.
LeeCK, NgKS, TanSG, AngR. Effect of different endotracheal suctioning systems on cardiorespiratory parameters of ventilated patients. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 2001; 30(3):239–244.
37.
LeeES, KimSH, KimJS. Effects of a closed endotracheal suction system on oxygen saturation, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and nursing efficacy. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi, 2004; 34(7):1315–1325.
38.
RadaelliA, RicordiL, CorbelliniD, SoldàPL, CalciatiA, SalvucciF, et al. The variability of the heart rate, arterial pressure and peripheral circulation as the indices of autonomic control in essential hypertension. Cardiologia, 1991; 36(12):961–969.
PagottoIM, OliveiraLR, AraújoFC, CarvalhoNA, ChiavoneP. Comparison between open and closed suction systems: a systematic review. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva, 2008; 20(4):331–338.
41.
VonbergRP, EckmannsT, WelteT, GastmeierP. Impact of the suctioning system (open vs. closed) on the incidence of ventilation-associated pneumonia: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Intensive Care Med, 2006; 32(9):1329–1335.
42.
WitmerMT, HessD, SimmonsM. An evaluation of the effectiveness of secretion removal with the Ballard closed-circuit suction catheter. Respir Care, 1991; 36(8):844–848.
43.
VallésJ, MillánS, DíazE, CastanyerE, GallardoX, Martín-LoechesI, et al. Incidence of airway complications in patients using endotracheal tubes with continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions. Ann Intensive Care, 2017; 7(1):109.
44.
BransonRD. Secretion management in the mechanically ventilated patient. Respir Care, 2007; 52(10):1328–1342.
45.
LindgrenS, AlmgrenB, HögmanM, LethvallS, HoultzE, LundinS, et al. Effectiveness and side effects of closed and open suctioning: an experimental evaluation. Intensive Care Med, 2004; 30(8):1630–1637.
46.
CarllAP, FarrajAK, RobertsAM. In: CampenMJ. editor. The role of the autonomic nervous system in cardiovascular toxicity, 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2018.
