Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Effect of prone positioning on clinical outcomes in children with acute lung injury: a randomized controlled trial. Randomized, controlled trial on tracheal colonization of ventilated infants: can gravity prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia? Comparison of the effect of closed versus open endotracheal suction systems on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
To compare the ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence rates in mechanically ventilated patients according to the type of endotracheal suctioning (closed versus open).
                The Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit of the Grenoble University Hospital, France.
                A prospective randomised study performed after a 6-month period of nursing personnel training.
                One hundred four consecutive patients needing mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h were randomised into two groups. To be eligible, patients had to have no active infection or respiratory affection in their passes. In the Stericath group (S+, n = 54), patients were not disconnected from the ventilator during suctioning. The others were routinely managed (S-, n = 50). In both groups patterns of frequency and duration of suctioning were performed according to a standardised protocol.
                The non-adjusted incidence rate of VAP was lower for S+ than for S- (7.32 versus 15.89 per 1000 patient-days, p = 0.07). Multivariate analysis performed using the Cox model showed an adjusted risk of VAP 3.5 times higher in S- (95% CI: 11.00-12.33). The risk being 4.3 higher in patients receiving gastric acid secretion inhibitors (1.08-16.82). In non-censored cases (n = 76) length of ICU stay increased by an average of 16.8 days when VAP was present (p = 0.0008). No adverse effect due to Stericath use was noted and volume of tracheal aspirate was similar between groups (p = 0.178).
                The use of Stericath reduced the incidence rate of VAP without demonstrating any adverse effect. In uncontrolled clinical studies, prone positioning appeared to be safe and to improve oxygenation in pediatric patients with acute lung injury. However, the effect of prone positioning on clinical outcomes in children is not known.
                To test the hypothesis that at the end of 28 days infants and children with acute lung injury treated with prone positioning would have more ventilator-free days than those treated with supine positioning.
                Multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted from August 28, 2001, to April 23, 2004, of 102 pediatric patients from 7 US pediatric intensive care units aged 2 weeks to 18 years who were treated with supine vs prone positioning. Randomization was concealed and group assignment was not blinded.
                Patients were randomized to either supine or prone positioning within 48 hours of meeting acute lung injury criteria, with those patients in the prone group being positioned within 4 hours of randomization and remaining prone for 20 hours each day during the acute phase of their illness for a maximum of 7 days, after which they were positioned supine. Both groups were treated using lung protective ventilator and sedation protocols, extubation readiness testing, and hemodynamic, nutrition, and skin care guidelines.
                Ventilator-free days to day 28.
                The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis on the basis of the prespecified futility stopping rule. There were no differences in the number of ventilator-free days between the 2 groups (mean [SD], 15.8 [8.5] supine vs 15.6 [8.6] prone; mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -3.6 to 3.2; P = .91). After controlling for age, Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score, direct vs indirect acute lung injury, and mode of mechanical ventilation at enrollment, the adjusted difference in ventilator-free days was 0.3 days (95% CI, -3.0 to 3.5; P = .87). There were no differences in the secondary end points, including proportion alive and ventilator-free on day 28 (P = .45), mortality from all causes (P>.99), the time to recovery of lung injury (P = .78), organ-failure-free days (P = .88), and cognitive impairment (P = .16) or overall functional health (P = .12) at hospital discharge or on day 28.
                Prone positioning does not significantly reduce ventilator-free days or improve other clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with acute lung injury. The goal was to test the hypothesis that intubated infants positioned on their sides would be less likely to contract bacterial colonization in their tracheae, compared with those positioned supine.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial with 60 intubated infants; 30 infants were positioned supine (supine group), and 30 infants were maintained in the lateral position (lateral group). Tracheal aspirates were cultured and bacterial colony counts were recorded after 48 hours and after 5 days of mechanical ventilation.
                After 2 days, the numbers of positive tracheal cultures in the supine group (67%) and in the lateral group (47%) showed no statistical difference. After 5 days of mechanical ventilation, tracheal cultures differed significantly between groups. Cultures were positive for 26 infants (87%) in the supine group and 9 infants (30%) in the lateral group. Compared with the lateral group, more infants in the supine group experienced increased colony counts or had new organisms in their tracheal aspirates over time (21 vs 8 infants). The most common organisms isolated from tracheal aspirates in both groups were Gram-negative rods.
                Respiratory contamination is very common among ventilated infants. Therefore, judicious use of mechanical ventilation cannot be overemphasized. Gravitational force can ameliorate the onset of respiratory colonization. The mechanism and clinical applicability of such observations need to be explored further. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of closed versus open endotracheal suction systems on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed in a medical intensive care unit (MICU) of a university hospital in patients who received mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h. Patients were randomized to receive endotracheal suction with either closed catheters (closed suction group; N-41) or single-use catheters (open suction group; N=37). Cultures were taken from the ventilator tubing of 42 patients to determine the rate of colonization. There was no difference between the groups in terms of the frequency of development of VAP, mortality in the MICU, length of MICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Thirteen patients in the open suction group and 16 patients in the closed suction group became colonized (P=0.14). The colonization rates by Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were more frequent in the closed suction group than in the open suction group (P<0.01 and P=0.04, respectively). In conclusion, closed endotracheal suction resulted in increased colonization rates of ventilator tubing with multi drug-resistant micro-organisms but did not increase the development of VAP and MICU outcome compared with open endotracheal suction.
There is some evidence to suggest suctioning without disconnection from the ventilator improves the short term outcomes; however the evidence is not strong enough to recommend this practice as the only method of endotracheal suctioning. Future research utilising larger trials needs to address the implications of the different techniques on ventilator associated pneumonia, pulmonary morbidities and neurodevelopment. Infants less than 28 weeks also need to be included in the trials.