Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  28 (2024)
Volume  27 (2023)
Volume  26 (2022)
Volume  25 (2021)
Volume  24 (2020)
Volume  23 (2019)
Volume  22 (2018)
Volume  21 (2017)
Volume  20 (2016)
Volume  19 (2015)
Volume  18 (2014)
Volume  17 (2013)
Volume  16 (2012)
Volume  15 (2011)
Volume  14 (2010)
Volume  13 (2009)
Volume  12 (2008)
Volume  11 (2007)
Volume  10 (2006)
Volume  9 (2005)
Volume  8 (2004)
Related articles

VOLUME 26 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2022 ) > List of Articles

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Comparison of Closed vs Open Suction in Prevention of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sarvin Sanaie, Sama Rahnemayan, Sahar Javan, Kamran Shadvar, Seied-Hadi Saghaleini, Ata Mahmoodpoor

Keywords : Closed, Prevention, Suction, Ventilator-associated pneumonia

Citation Information : Sanaie S, Rahnemayan S, Javan S, Shadvar K, Saghaleini S, Mahmoodpoor A. Comparison of Closed vs Open Suction in Prevention of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022; 26 (7):839-845.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24252

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-07-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Ventilator-associated events (VAEs) are one of the main sources of concern in critically ill patients due to the high frequency and mortality. We conducted this analysis to compare the effects of open endotracheal suctioning system with closed one on the incidences of VAEs in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and hand searching bibliographies of retrieved articles. The search was confined to randomized controlled trials with human adults comparing closed tracheal suction systems (CTSS) vs open tracheal suction systems (OTSS) in prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Full-text articles were used in order to extract the data. Data extraction was only started after completing the quality assessment. Results: The search resulted in 59 publications. Among them, 10 were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. There was a significant increase in incidence of VAP when using OTSS compared to CTSS, so that OCSS increased the incidence of VAP by 57% (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.063–2.32, p = 0.02). Discussion: Our results showed that using CTSS can significantly decrease VAP development compared to OTSS. This conclusion does not yet mean the routine use of CTSS as a standard VAP prevention measure for all patients since individual patient's disease and cost are other factors that should be in mind when determining the choice of the suctioning system. High-quality trials with a larger sample size are highly recommended.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Chastre J, Fagon J-Y. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165(7):867–903. DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.165.7.2105078.
  2. Rello J, Ollendorf DA, Oster G, Vera-Llonch M, Bellm L, Redman R, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large US database. Chest 2002;122(6):2115–2121. DOI: 10.1378/chest.122.6.2115.
  3. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, Bruining HA, White J, Nicolas- Chanoin MH, et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe. Results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study. EPIC International Advisory Committee. JAMA 1995;274(8):639–644. PMID: 7637145.
  4. Hunter JD. Ventilator associated pneumonia. BMJ 2012;344:e3325. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e3325.
  5. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Bonten MJM. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality: a systematic review of observational studies. Crit Care Med 2009;37(10):2709–2718. DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181ab8655.
  6. Safdar N, Dezfulian C, Collard HR, Saint S. Clinical and economic consequences of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2005;33(10):2184–2193. DOI: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000181731.53912.d9.
  7. Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, Franz C, Song P, Yamin CK, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173(22):2039–2046. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763.
  8. Morris AC, Hay AW, Swann DG, Everingham K, McCulloch C, McNulty J, et al. Reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care: impact of implementing a care bundle. Crit Care Med 2011;39(10):2218–2224. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182227d52.
  9. Cereda M, Villa F, Colombo E, Greco G, Nacoti M, Pesenti A. Closed system endotracheal suctioning maintains lung volume during volume-controlled mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2001;27(4):648–654. DOI: 10.1007/s001340100897.
  10. Maggiore SM, Lellouche F, Pigeot J, Taille S, Deye N, Durrmeyer X, et al. Prevention of endotracheal suctioning-induced alveolar derecruitment in acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167(9):1215–1224. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200203-195OC.
  11. Jongerden IP, Rovers MM, Grypdonck MH, Bonten MJ. Open and closed endotracheal suction systems in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2007;35(1): 260–270. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000251126.45980.E8.
  12. Kuriyama A, Umakoshi N, Fujinaga J, Takada T. 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. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-014-3565-4.
  13. Overend TJ, Anderson CM, Brooks D, Cicutto L, Keim M, McAuslan D, et al. Updating the evidence-base for suctioning adult patients: a systematic review. Can Respir J 2009;16(3):e6–e17. DOI: 10.1155/2009/872921.
  14. Peter JV, Chacko B, Moran JL. Comparison of closed endotracheal suction versus open endotracheal suction in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care patients: an evaluation using meta-analytic techniques. Indian J Med Sci 2007;61(4):201–211. PMID: 17401257.
  15. Siempos II, Vardakas KZ, Falagas ME. Closed tracheal suction systems for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Br J Anaesth 2008;100(3):299–306. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aem403.
  16. Subirana M, Solà I, Benito S. Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2007;2007(4):CD004581. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004581.pub2.
  17. Vonberg R-P, Eckmanns T, Welte T, Gastmeier P. 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. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-006-0241-3.
  18. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010;8:18. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18.
  19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557–560. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
  20. Rabitsch W, Köstler WJ, Fiebiger W, Dielacher C, Losert H, Sherif C, et al. Closed suctioning system reduces cross-contamination between bronchial system and gastric juices. Anesth Analg 2004;99(3):886. DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000143353.85428.39.
  21. Mahmoodpoor A, Peyrovi-far A, Hamishehkar H, Bakhtyiari Z, Mirinezhad MM, Hamidi M, et al. Comparison of prophylactic effects of polyurethane cylindrical or tapered cuff and polyvinyl chloride cuff endotracheal tubes on ventilator-associated pneumonia. Acta Med Iran 2013;51(7):461–466. PMID: 23945890.
  22. Niël-Weise BS, Snoeren RLMM, van den Broek PJ. Policies for endotracheal suctioning of patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(5):531–536. DOI: 10.1086/513726.
  23. Alipour N, Manouchehrian N, Sanatkar M, Anvari HMP, Jahromi MSS. Evaluation of the effect of open and closed tracheal suction on the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia in patients admitted in the intensive care unit. Arch Anesthesiol Crit Care 2016;2(2):193–196. SE-Research Article(s). Available from: https://aacc.tums.ac.ir/index.php/aacc/article/view/79.
  24. Ardehali SH, Fatemi A, Rezaei SF, Forouzanfar MM, Zolghadr Z. The effects of open and closed suction methods on occurrence of ventilator associated pneumonia; a comparative study. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2020;8(1):e8. PMID: 32021989.
  25. Hamishekar H, Shadvar K, Taghizadeh M, Golzari SE, Mojtahedzadeh M, Soleimanpour H, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients admitted to intensive care units, using open or closed endotracheal suctioning. Anesthesiol Pain Med 2014;4(5):e21649. DOI: 10.5812/aapm.21649.
  26. Combes P, Fauvage B, Oleyer C. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive Care Med 2000;26(7):878–882. DOI: 10.1007/s001340051276.
  27. Topeli A, Harmanci A, Cetinkaya Y, Akdeniz S, Unal S. Comparison of the effect of closed versus open endotracheal suction systems on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Hosp Infect 2004;58(1):14–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.05.005.
  28. David D, Samuel P, David T, Keshava SN, Irodi A, Peter JV. An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suctioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care patients. J Crit Care 2011;26(5):482–488. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.10.002.
  29. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Martín MM, García C, Mora ML, Sierra A. Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a closed versus an open tracheal suction system. Crit Care Med 2005;33(1):115–119. DOI: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000150267.40396.90.
  30. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, Mora ML, Sierra A. Tracheal suction by closed system without daily change versus open system. Intensive Care Med 2006;32(4):538–544. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-0057-6.
  31. Zeitoun SS, de Barros ALBL, Diccini S. A prospective, randomized study of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients using a closed vs. open suction system. J Clin Nurs 2003;12(4):484–489. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00749.x.
  32. AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated patients with artificial airways 2010. Respir Care 2010;55(6):758–764. PMID: 20507660.
  33. Dodek P, Keenan S, Cook D, Heyland D, Jacka M, Hand L, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ann Intern Med 2004;141(4): 305–313. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00011.
  34. Hess DR, Kallstrom TJ, Mottram CD, Myers TR, Sorenson HM, Vines DL. Care of the ventilator circuit and its relation to ventilator-associated pneumonia. Respir Care 2003;48(9):869–879. PMID: 14513820.
  35. Muscedere J, Dodek P, Keenan S, Fowler R, Cook D, Heyland D. Comprehensive evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for ventilator-associated pneumonia: prevention. J Crit Care 2008;23(1):126–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2007.11.014.
  36. Darvas JA, Hawkins LG. The closed tracheal suction catheter: 24 hour or 48 hour change? Aust Crit care Off J Confed Aust Crit Care Nurses 2003;16(3):86–92. DOI: 10.1016/s1036-7314(03) 80005-x.
  37. Kollef MH, Prentice D, Shapiro SD, Fraser VJ, Silver P, Trovillion E, et al. Mechanical ventilation with or without daily changes of in-line suction catheters. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;156(2 Pt 1):466–472. DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.156.2.9612083.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.