Chest ACCP Career Connection
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guglielminotti, J.
Right arrow Articles by Offenstadt, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guglielminotti, J.
Right arrow Articles by Offenstadt, G.
(Chest. 2000;118:1095-1099.)
© 2000 American College of Chest Physicians

Bedside Detection of Retained Tracheobronchial Secretions in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation*

Is It Time for Tracheal Suctioning?

Jean Guglielminotti, MD; Marc Alzieu, MD; Eric Maury, MD; Bertrand Guidet, MD and Georges Offenstadt, MD

* From the Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Correspondence to: Jean Guglielminotti, MD, Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine, 75571 Paris Cedex 12, France; e-mail: georges.offenstadt{at}sat.ap-hop-paris.fr

Objective: To identify parameters that indicate retained secretions and the need for tracheal suctioning (TS) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV).

Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: A 14-bed medical ICU in a 946-bed university hospital.

Patients: Sixty-six consecutive patients receiving MV.

Interventions: Two successive tracheal suctions, TS1 and TS2, performed at a 2-h interval as usual patient care. Retained secretions were considered significant if the volume of secretions removed by TS2 was > 0.5 mL.

Measurements and results: Variations between TS1 and TS2 of pulse oximetric saturation (SpO2), peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak), tidal volume (VT), and Ramsay score were compared between patients with TS2 <= 0.5 mL (group 1; n = 27) and patients with TS2 > 0.5 mL (group 2; n = 39). The presence of a sawtooth pattern on flow-volume loop displayed on the monitor screen of the ventilator and of respiratory sounds heard over the trachea before TS2 were compared between the two groups. Variations of Ppeak, VT, SpO2, and Ramsay score between TS1 and TS2 did not differ between the two groups. However, group 2 had a sawtooth pattern (82% vs 29.6%; p = 0.0001) and respiratory sounds (66.6% vs 25.9%; p = 0.001) more frequently than group 1 before TS2. For the sawtooth pattern, the likelihood ratio (LR) of a positive test was 2.70 and the LR of a negative test was 0.25, while for respiratory sounds it was 2.50 and 0.45, respectively. When the presence of a sawtooth pattern and of respiratory sounds was combined, the LR of a positive test rose to 14.7 and the LR of a negative test was 0.42.

Conclusions: A sawtooth pattern and/or respiratory sounds over the trachea are good indicators of retained secretions in patients receiving MV and may indicate the need for TS. Conversely, the absence of a sawtooth pattern may rule out retained secretions.

Key Words: airway obstruction • flow-volume curves • intubation, intratracheal • respiration, artificial • respiratory sounds • suction • trachea






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American College of Chest Physicians.