Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes in neonates undergoing noncardiac surgeries: A randomized controlled trial.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1111/pan.14953
Khaled Sarhan, Rana Walaa, Ahmed Hasanin, Manal Elgohary, Ramy Alkonaiesy, Kareem Nawwar, Mohamed Elsonbaty, Ahmad Elsonbaty
{"title":"Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes in neonates undergoing noncardiac surgeries: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Khaled Sarhan, Rana Walaa, Ahmed Hasanin, Manal Elgohary, Ramy Alkonaiesy, Kareem Nawwar, Mohamed Elsonbaty, Ahmad Elsonbaty","doi":"10.1111/pan.14953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy and safety of cuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) in neonates are still unclear, this study aimed to assess the efficacy of cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonate undergoing noncardiac surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Neonates scheduled for noncardiac surgeries were randomized into two groups according to the type of airway device during general anesthesia: cuffed ETT group (n = 60) and the uncuffed ETT group (n = 60). The primary outcome was the incidence of ETT exchange to find the appropriate ETT. Other outcomes included: duration of intubation, lung ultrasound score, and incidence of postoperative complications (croup, wheezes, hypoxia, etc.).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The frequency of ETT exchange was lower in the cuffed ETT group compared to the uncuffed one {1 (1.7%) vs. 28 (46.7%), p = .0001; relative risk [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 [0.43-0.69]}. Postoperative adverse events were comparable between both groups except for significantly higher post extubation croup in the uncuffed ETT group compared to the cuffed ETT {10 (16.7%) vs. 3(5%), p value = .04, relative risk (95% confidence interval): 1.14 (1-1.29)}.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In full term neonates undergoing noncardiac surgeries, the use of cuffed ETT was associated with less need to tracheal tube exchange and less incidence of postoperative croup, without increasing the postoperative respiratory complications compared to uncuffed ETT.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":" ","pages":"1045-1052"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14953","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The efficacy and safety of cuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) in neonates are still unclear, this study aimed to assess the efficacy of cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonate undergoing noncardiac surgeries.

Methods: Neonates scheduled for noncardiac surgeries were randomized into two groups according to the type of airway device during general anesthesia: cuffed ETT group (n = 60) and the uncuffed ETT group (n = 60). The primary outcome was the incidence of ETT exchange to find the appropriate ETT. Other outcomes included: duration of intubation, lung ultrasound score, and incidence of postoperative complications (croup, wheezes, hypoxia, etc.).

Results: The frequency of ETT exchange was lower in the cuffed ETT group compared to the uncuffed one {1 (1.7%) vs. 28 (46.7%), p = .0001; relative risk [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 [0.43-0.69]}. Postoperative adverse events were comparable between both groups except for significantly higher post extubation croup in the uncuffed ETT group compared to the cuffed ETT {10 (16.7%) vs. 3(5%), p value = .04, relative risk (95% confidence interval): 1.14 (1-1.29)}.

Conclusion: In full term neonates undergoing noncardiac surgeries, the use of cuffed ETT was associated with less need to tracheal tube exchange and less incidence of postoperative croup, without increasing the postoperative respiratory complications compared to uncuffed ETT.

在接受非心脏手术的新生儿中使用带袖带气管导管与不带袖带气管导管:随机对照试验。
背景:本研究旨在评估在接受非心脏手术的新生儿中使用带袖带气管插管(ETT)的有效性和安全性:根据全身麻醉期间气道装置的类型,将计划接受非心脏手术的新生儿随机分为两组:带袖套 ETT 组(n = 60)和不带袖套 ETT 组(n = 60)。主要结果是为找到合适的 ETT 而更换 ETT 的发生率。其他结果包括:插管持续时间、肺部超声评分和术后并发症(气团、喘息、缺氧等)的发生率:结果:带袖带 ETT 组与不带袖带 ETT 组相比,更换 ETT 的频率较低 {1(1.7%)对 28(46.7%),P = .0001;相对风险 [95% 置信区间]:0.54 [0.43-0.5] [0.54-0.5]:0.54 [0.43-0.69]}.两组的术后不良事件不相上下,但未带袖带 ETT 组的拔管后哮鸣音显著高于带袖带 ETT 组 {10 (16.7%) vs. 3(5%),p 值 = .04,相对风险[95% 置信区间]:1.14 (1-1.29)} :结论:结论:在接受非心脏手术的足月新生儿中,使用带袖带 ETT 与未带袖带 ETT 相比,更换气管导管的需要更少,术后气管痉挛的发生率更低,且不会增加术后呼吸系统并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信