↓ Skip to main content

The value of polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tubes to reduce microaspiration and intubation-related pneumonia: a systematic review of laboratory and clinical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The value of polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tubes to reduce microaspiration and intubation-related pneumonia: a systematic review of laboratory and clinical studies
Published in
Critical Care, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1380-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stijn I. Blot, Jordi Rello, Despoina Koulenti

Abstract

When conventional high-volume, low-pressure cuffs of endotracheal tubes (ETTs) are inflated, channel formation due to folds in the cuff wall can occur. These channels facilitate microaspiration of subglottic secretions, which is the main pathogenic mechanism leading to intubation-related pneumonia. Ultrathin polyurethane (PU)-cuffed ETTs are developed to minimize channel formation in the cuff wall and therefore the risk of microaspiration and respiratory infections. We systematically reviewed the available literature for laboratory and clinical studies comparing fluid leakage or microaspiration and/or rates of respiratory infections between ETTs with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cuffs and ETTs with PU cuffs. The literature search revealed nine in vitro experiments, one in vivo (animal) experiment, and five clinical studies. Among the 9 in vitro studies, 10 types of PU-cuffed ETTs were compared with 17 types of PVC-cuffed tubes, accounting for 67 vs. 108 experiments with 36 PU-cuffed tubes and 42 PVC-cuffed tubes, respectively. Among the clinical studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that involved 708 patients. In this review, we provide evidence that PU cuffs protect more efficiently than PVC cuffs against fluid leakage or microaspiration. All studies with leakage and/or microaspiration as the primary outcome demonstrated significantly less leakage (eight in vitro and two clinical studies) or at least a tendency toward more efficient sealing (one in vivo animal experiment). In particular, high-risk patients intubated for shorter periods may benefit from the more effective sealing capacity afforded by PU cuffs. For example, cardiac surgery patients experienced a lower risk of early postoperative pneumonia in one RCT. The evidence that PU-cuffed tubes prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is less robust, probably because microaspiration is postponed rather than eliminated. One RCT demonstrated no difference in VAP risk between patients intubated with either PU-cuffed or PVC-cuffed tubes, and one before-after trial demonstrated a favorable reduction in VAP rates following the introduction of PU-cuffed tubes. Current evidence can support the use of PU-cuffed ETTs in high-risk surgical patients, while there is only very limited evidence that PU cuffs prevent pneumonia in patients ventilated for prolonged periods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Engineering 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 34 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,047,277
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,831
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,441
of 368,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#59
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.