首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research >Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques
【2h】

Comparison of tracheal tube cuff pressure with two technique: fixed volume and minimal leak test techniques

机译:两种技术比较气管导管袖套压力:固定容量和最小泄漏测试技术

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Introduction: There is a correlation between endotracheal cuff pressure and airway complication; therefore, cuff pressure measurement is of an essential importance. The gold standard technique is measuring the cuff pressure by a calibrated manometer. However, there are several methods that injects air into balloon pilot and measures the cuff pressure. The aim of this study is to compare the tracheal cuff pressure measurement by two methods: fixed volume and minimal leak test (MLT). >Methods: This descriptive study was performed at the emergency department on 110 patients. Patients were randomized into two groups. For one group, fixed volume technique and for the other group MLT was used. >Results: Mean cuff pressure was 46.07±23.54 cmH2O in the fixed volume group and 33.72±9.14 cmH2O in the MLT group (P=0.05) which is significantly higher in the fixed volume group (P=0.028). In addition, 56.4% and 78.2% of the subjects had normal cuff pressure in the fixed volume group and MLT group, respectively; indicating a significantly higher rate in MLT group (P=0.025). >Conclusion: Both techniques cause above normal intracuff pressure; however, MLT produces more acceptable pressure than fixed volume. It seems that the volume of 10 cc produces high pressures; therefore, fixed values may yield more appropriate results in lower volumes.
机译:>简介:气管内袖带压力与气道并发症之间存在相关性;因此,袖带压力的测量至关重要。黄金标准技术是通过校准的压力计测量袖带压力。但是,有几种方法可以将空气注入气球引燃器并测量袖带压力。这项研究的目的是通过两种方法比较气管袖带压力测量:固定体积和最小泄漏测试(MLT)。 >方法:该描述性研究是在急诊科对110位患者进行的。将患者随机分为两组。对于一组,使用固定容量技术,而对于另一组,使用MLT。 >结果:固定容量组的平均袖带压为46.07±23.54 cmH2O,而MLT组的平均袖带压为33.72±9.14 cmH2O(P = 0.05),固定容量组的平均袖带压明显更高(P = 0.028) 。此外,固定容量组和MLT组分别有56.4%和78.2%的受试者的袖带压正常。表示MLT组的患病率显着更高(P = 0.025)。 >结论:两种技术均会导致正常的袖带内压力;但是,MLT产生的压力要比固定体积大。似乎10 cc的体积会产生高压。因此,固定值可能会在较小的体积下产生更合适的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号