对机械通气患者重复使用一次性气管内吸引导管的影响进行范围界定。

Mohamed H Eid, Kevin Hambridge, Patricia Schofield, Jos M Latour
{"title":"对机械通气患者重复使用一次性气管内吸引导管的影响进行范围界定。","authors":"Mohamed H Eid, Kevin Hambridge, Patricia Schofield, Jos M Latour","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Currently there is limited evidence of the frequency of using endotracheal suctioning catheters. Due to limited resources, many low- and middle-income countries still reuse single-use suction catheters multiple times during the length of a nursing shift. This scoping review was conducted to map the impact of reusing single-use endotracheal suctioning catheters practices on mechanically ventilated patients' outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Four databases systematically searched using predefined keywords (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, GLOBAL HEALTH). Key electronic journals were hand searched, while reference lists of included documents and grey literature sources were screened thoroughly. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection and data extraction. A third reviewer made the final decision on any disagreements disputed records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 22 articles were identified, and 14 non-duplicate records were screened, and 8 articles were screened for full text. Six articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Differences were observed on the findings of included studies, two studies identified that reusing single-use suction catheter might increases the risk of respiratory infection, while two other studies identified no difference in contamination rate between single used or multiple-used catheters. One study indicated that reusing single-use catheters are a safe and cost-effective intervention and finally one study reported that reusing single-use catheters might reduce incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia if flushed with chlorhexidine after suctioning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no strong evidence of the frequency of using endotracheal suction catheters. Further research is needed comparing single-used versus multiple-used endotracheal suction catheters in mechanically ventilated patients.</p><p><strong>Implication for clinical practice: </strong>Nurses in resource-limited countries can follow their hospital policy regarding the changing frequency of endotracheal suction catheters due to lack of a robust evidence. Flushing suction circuits with chlorhexidine while reusing single-use catheters might reduce the risk of respiratory infections in these hospitals.</p>","PeriodicalId":94043,"journal":{"name":"Intensive & critical care nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review to map the implications of reusing single-use endotracheal suctioning catheter practices in mechanically ventilated patients.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed H Eid, Kevin Hambridge, Patricia Schofield, Jos M Latour\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Currently there is limited evidence of the frequency of using endotracheal suctioning catheters. Due to limited resources, many low- and middle-income countries still reuse single-use suction catheters multiple times during the length of a nursing shift. This scoping review was conducted to map the impact of reusing single-use endotracheal suctioning catheters practices on mechanically ventilated patients' outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Four databases systematically searched using predefined keywords (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, GLOBAL HEALTH). Key electronic journals were hand searched, while reference lists of included documents and grey literature sources were screened thoroughly. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection and data extraction. A third reviewer made the final decision on any disagreements disputed records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 22 articles were identified, and 14 non-duplicate records were screened, and 8 articles were screened for full text. Six articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Differences were observed on the findings of included studies, two studies identified that reusing single-use suction catheter might increases the risk of respiratory infection, while two other studies identified no difference in contamination rate between single used or multiple-used catheters. One study indicated that reusing single-use catheters are a safe and cost-effective intervention and finally one study reported that reusing single-use catheters might reduce incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia if flushed with chlorhexidine after suctioning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no strong evidence of the frequency of using endotracheal suction catheters. Further research is needed comparing single-used versus multiple-used endotracheal suction catheters in mechanically ventilated patients.</p><p><strong>Implication for clinical practice: </strong>Nurses in resource-limited countries can follow their hospital policy regarding the changing frequency of endotracheal suction catheters due to lack of a robust evidence. Flushing suction circuits with chlorhexidine while reusing single-use catheters might reduce the risk of respiratory infections in these hospitals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intensive & critical care nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intensive & critical care nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103848\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive & critical care nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:目前,有关气管内吸引导管使用频率的证据有限。由于资源有限,许多中低收入国家仍在一个护理班次中多次重复使用一次性吸痰导管。本范围界定综述旨在了解重复使用一次性气管内吸引导管的做法对机械通气患者预后的影响:范围界定综述按照 JBI 范围界定综述方法进行。使用预定义关键词系统检索了四个数据库(CINAHL、EMBASE、MEDLINE、GLOBAL HEALTH)。对主要电子期刊进行了人工检索,同时对纳入文献的参考文献目录和灰色文献来源进行了彻底筛选。两位独立审稿人完成了研究的筛选和数据提取。第三位审稿人对有争议的记录做出最终决定:共确定了 22 篇文章,筛选了 14 条非重复记录,并对 8 篇文章进行了全文筛选。有 6 篇文章符合纳入标准,被纳入本综述。所纳入研究的结果存在差异,其中两项研究发现重复使用一次性吸引导管可能会增加呼吸道感染的风险,而另外两项研究则发现一次性使用或多次使用导管的污染率没有差异。一项研究表明,重复使用一次性导管是一种安全且具有成本效益的干预措施,最后一项研究报告称,如果在抽吸后用洗必泰冲洗一次性导管,重复使用一次性导管可降低呼吸机相关肺炎的发病率:关于气管内吸引导管的使用频率,目前尚无有力证据。对临床实践的启示:在资源有限的国家,护理人员在使用气管内吸引导管时应遵循以下原则:"在使用气管内吸引导管前,应先冲洗氯己定":对临床实践的启示:在资源有限的国家,由于缺乏可靠的证据,护士可根据医院政策改变气管内吸引导管的使用频率。在重复使用一次性导管的同时用洗必泰冲洗抽吸回路可能会降低这些医院的呼吸道感染风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review to map the implications of reusing single-use endotracheal suctioning catheter practices in mechanically ventilated patients.

Introduction: Currently there is limited evidence of the frequency of using endotracheal suctioning catheters. Due to limited resources, many low- and middle-income countries still reuse single-use suction catheters multiple times during the length of a nursing shift. This scoping review was conducted to map the impact of reusing single-use endotracheal suctioning catheters practices on mechanically ventilated patients' outcomes.

Methods: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Four databases systematically searched using predefined keywords (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, GLOBAL HEALTH). Key electronic journals were hand searched, while reference lists of included documents and grey literature sources were screened thoroughly. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection and data extraction. A third reviewer made the final decision on any disagreements disputed records.

Results: In total 22 articles were identified, and 14 non-duplicate records were screened, and 8 articles were screened for full text. Six articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Differences were observed on the findings of included studies, two studies identified that reusing single-use suction catheter might increases the risk of respiratory infection, while two other studies identified no difference in contamination rate between single used or multiple-used catheters. One study indicated that reusing single-use catheters are a safe and cost-effective intervention and finally one study reported that reusing single-use catheters might reduce incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia if flushed with chlorhexidine after suctioning.

Conclusions: There is no strong evidence of the frequency of using endotracheal suction catheters. Further research is needed comparing single-used versus multiple-used endotracheal suction catheters in mechanically ventilated patients.

Implication for clinical practice: Nurses in resource-limited countries can follow their hospital policy regarding the changing frequency of endotracheal suction catheters due to lack of a robust evidence. Flushing suction circuits with chlorhexidine while reusing single-use catheters might reduce the risk of respiratory infections in these hospitals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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