Scholarlink

Background <p>While continuous cuff pressure monitoring (CCPM) offers theoretical advantages in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), its clinical benefits remain controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether CCPM reduces VAP incidence compared with intermittent cuff pressure monitoring (ICPM) and its impact on nursing workload.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial across eight tertiary hospitals in China. Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48&#xa0;h were randomly assigned (1:1) to CCPM (<i>n</i> = 105) or ICPM (<i>n</i> = 108). Patients with tracheotomy, nasotracheal intubation or contraindications for semi-recumbent positioning were excluded. Randomisation was conducted using sealed opaque envelopes. The primary outcome was VAP incidence, diagnosed per Chinese Respiratory Society guidelines. Secondary outcomes included nursing workload, the percentage of time cuff pressure (Pcuff) was maintained at the target range (25–30&#xa0;cm H<sub>2</sub>O), the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and ICU mortality.</p> Results <p>The VAP incidence did not differ significantly between the CCPM and ICPM groups (16.2% vs. 17.6%; <i>P</i> = 0.79), but the CCPM group significantly reduced the cumulative time spent on Pcuff adjustments within 48&#xa0;h (85&#xa0;s vs. 660&#xa0;s; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). The percentage of Pcuff determinations within the target range was higher with CCPM (96.9% vs. 70.7%; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). No significant differences were found in mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay or ICU mortality (all <i>P</i> &gt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>Continuous cuff pressure monitoring did not reduce VAP incidence compared with ICPM but significantly decreased nursing workload and improved Pcuff control, suggesting that CCPM may serve as an efficient alternative for Pcuff management, thereby benefiting clinical workflow without compromising patient outcomes.</p> Trial registration <p>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300077728. Registered 17 November 2023 – registered, <a href="https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=190428">https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=190428</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Continuous versus intermittent cuff pressure monitoring in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月10日

查看全文
  • Yanshuo Wu,
  • Yunhao Su,
  • Liping Zhao,
  • Xi Wang,
  • Kun Zhang,
  • Yuhong Chen,
  • Xiaokun Zhang,
  • Peng Gao,
  • Kangkang Shen,
  • Chencong Li,
  • Yanling Yin,
  • Congcong Zhao

摘要

Background

While continuous cuff pressure monitoring (CCPM) offers theoretical advantages in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), its clinical benefits remain controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether CCPM reduces VAP incidence compared with intermittent cuff pressure monitoring (ICPM) and its impact on nursing workload.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial across eight tertiary hospitals in China. Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to CCPM (n = 105) or ICPM (n = 108). Patients with tracheotomy, nasotracheal intubation or contraindications for semi-recumbent positioning were excluded. Randomisation was conducted using sealed opaque envelopes. The primary outcome was VAP incidence, diagnosed per Chinese Respiratory Society guidelines. Secondary outcomes included nursing workload, the percentage of time cuff pressure (Pcuff) was maintained at the target range (25–30 cm H2O), the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and ICU mortality.

Results

The VAP incidence did not differ significantly between the CCPM and ICPM groups (16.2% vs. 17.6%; P = 0.79), but the CCPM group significantly reduced the cumulative time spent on Pcuff adjustments within 48 h (85 s vs. 660 s; P < 0.001). The percentage of Pcuff determinations within the target range was higher with CCPM (96.9% vs. 70.7%; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay or ICU mortality (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Continuous cuff pressure monitoring did not reduce VAP incidence compared with ICPM but significantly decreased nursing workload and improved Pcuff control, suggesting that CCPM may serve as an efficient alternative for Pcuff management, thereby benefiting clinical workflow without compromising patient outcomes.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300077728. Registered 17 November 2023 – registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=190428.