Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether disposable suction catheters can be
reused in the same patient for a 24-hour period without affecting the incidence of pneumonia.
DESIGN: The study design was a randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: The study was conducted in the pediatric intensive care unit of a tertiary pediatric center.
SAMPLE: Subjects included 486 children with an endotracheal tube in place.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The development of pneumonia, diagnosed with radiographic and clinical
evidence, was the measure. Cost analysis was also undertaken.
METHOD: Subjects in the study group (n = 241) were suctioned using the same catheter for a 24-hour
period. Those in the control group (n = 245) had a new catheter for each episode of suctioning.
RESULTS: Pneumonia developed in 14 members (5.71%) of the control group and in 12 members
(4.98%) of the study group, a difference of 0.7% (95% CI, 3.3% to 4.7%). Cost analysis indicated a
saving of Aust $4.14 per patient per day.
CONCLUSION: Reusing suction catheters for up to 24 hours is both safe and cost-effective.
(Heart Lung 2001;30:225-33.)
ndotracheal suctioning is one of the most frequently performed nursing tasks in intensive
care units (ICUs). Patients may require suctioning between 3 and 24 times a day. Consequently, suction catheters are the single biggest item of
expenditure in consumables in our pediatric ICU
(PICU). Budget constraints prompted us to investigate ways of reducing this expenditure. From anecdotal reports, we were aware that in some units disposable suction catheters are reused for multiple
episodes of suctioning. Although considerable cost
From the aRoyal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, and the bUniversity of Melbourne.
Supported by funding from the Nursing Research Management
Group, Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne.
Reprint requests: M. K. Scoble, Paediatric Intensive Care Unit,
Royal Childrens Hospital, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia.
Copyright 2001 by Mosby, Inc.
0147-9563/2001/$35.00 + 0 2/1/115519
doi:10.1067/mhl.2001.115519
LITERATURE REVIEW
Nosocomial pneumonia is a major concern in
ICUs, increasing mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients, prolonging the duration of hospitalization, and consequently increasing the cost of
treatment.1 The reported prevalence ranges from
7% in neonatal ICUs1 to 40% in some adult ICUs.2
Endotracheal intubation has been identified as the
biggest risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia
because it prevents closure of the glottis and
impairs natural defenses.1 Because the risk of
pneumonia in ventilated patients increases with
longer duration of intubation, it is suggested that
225
Scoble et al
AIM
The aim of this study was to determine whether
ordinary disposable suction catheters could safely be reused for a 24-hour period. We tested the
hypothesis that the incidence of pneumonia
would not differ between children who were suctioned using 1 catheter for 24 hours and children
who were suctioned using a new catheter for each
episode.
METHODS
Sample and setting
The study was carried out between July 1995 and
May 1998 in the PICU of the Royal Childrens Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, a large metropolitan
tertiary referral hospital. The PICU has 13 beds and
admits approximately 1300 patients annually. The
age of patients admitted to the unit range from
newborn to 16 years, and neonates constitute
approximately 12% of all admissions. Preterm
infants are rarely admitted to the PICU. The severity of illness of the patient population has been
described in detail elsewhere.21
All children who were intubated in the unit or
who had an endotracheal tube in place on admission were entered into the study, with the following
exclusions:
1. children who had clinical and documented
evidence of lower respiratory tract infection
before entry into the study; that is, with a
clinical diagnosis of croup, pneumonia, or
bronchiolitis;
2. children who had been intubated for more
than 24 hours before admission;
MAY/JUNE 2001
Scoble et al
Table I
Number of patients excluded from analysis after randomization and reason for exclusion
Exclusion
298
5
23
20
10
6
3
1
366
290
2
19
16
14
3
2
1
347
ECMO, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; LRTI, lower respiratory tract infection; ETT, endotracheal tube.
*Number randomized to the group.
Table II
Diagnostic categories of subjects
Category
Cardiac
Neonatal medical
Trauma
Neurologic (excluding traumatic brain injury)
Postoperative observation
Respiratory (excluding LRTI)
Other*
Control group
Study group
195
13
13
13
2
1
8
185
13
18
11
1
4
9
these exclusions were a result of meeting the criteria described previously; however, 118 children
were withdrawn because of errors in the randomization or study procedures. The reasons for exclusion are listed in Table I. The resultant sample for
analysis was 486 patients, with 245 in the control
group and 241 in the study group.
The ages of the subjects ranged from 0 months
to 19 years, with a median of 3.25 months. Diagnostic categories on admission are shown in
Table II.
Procedures
Permission to conduct the study was granted by
the Hospitals Ethics in Human Research Committee. The Committee waived the requirement to
obtain written consent from parents or guardians
because both suctioning techniques were routinely
used in the PICU.
227
Children were entered into the study after intubation or on admission if they were intubated outside our PICU. Patients were randomized to the
control group or the study group. Equal numbers in
the groups were ensured by using block randomization, with a block size of 4 subjects. The group
allocation was placed in a sequentially numbered,
sealed, opaque envelope, which was opened when
the patient was entered into the study.
In the control group, endotracheal suctioning
was performed using a new, sterile catheter for
each suctioning episode. A suctioning episode was
defined as a periodic clearance of the endotracheal
tube, passing the catheter as many times as
required; in general, clearance would require 2 to 3
passes. If it was necessary to clear the catheter
between passes, tap water from a metal container
kept at the bedside was suctioned through it. This
container was changed daily at 7 AM, as is routine
practice in the PICU. At the end of the episode, the
catheter was discarded into a paper bag hanging at
the patients bedside.
In the study group, the same catheter was used
for every episode of suctioning in a 24-hour period.
A new catheter was opened at 7 AM each day and
between suctioning episodes was stored in its
paper sheath and hung at the patients bedside.
This sheath was not removed during the 24-hour
period, so there was no possibility of using the
same catheter for more than 1 patient, and therefore no risk of cross infection between patients.
After each episode, tap water was suctioned
through these catheters to clear them, as well as
between passes if required, as with the control
group. The catheters were discarded in the same
manner as the catheters in the control group at the
end of the 24-hour period, or earlier if contaminated (for instance, by being dropped on the bed or
floor) or blocked.
Otherwise the procedure was identical in both
groups. Two nurses performed the procedure. One
nurse disconnected the endotracheal tube from the
ventilator or hand-ventilation circuit, supported the
tube during each pass of the catheter, and reconnected the tube after each pass, hand ventilating
between passes if required. The other nurse passed
the suction catheter, wearing a clean, unsterile
glove on the hand holding the catheter, and applying suction with the other, ungloved hand. Sterile
normal saline, stored in a tray at the patients bedside, was instilled into the endotracheal tube if the
nurse deemed it necessary. Both nurses washed
their hands before and after the procedure. Frequency of suctioning was determined by the nurse
228
Scoble et al
caring for the patient. For all patients, humidification was provided by a water humidifier with a heated wire circuit. Ventilator circuits were changed
weekly, in accordance with the units protocol.
Patients remained in the study until pneumonia
developed, they were extubated (for any reason,
including death), or they had a tracheostomy performed. To allow for the clinical manifestation of
pneumonia incubating at the time of extubation,
patients who were extubated or underwent tracheostomy were followed for 24 hours after the
event (with the exception of patients who died). It
was considered that if pneumonia developed after
this time, it was unlikely to be ventilator-associated. Patients who were reintubated within the 24hour period remained in the study in the group to
which they were originally allocated; this event was
not recorded on the study data sheets.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS
The study outcome was development of pneumonia more than 24 hours after intubation and
within 24 hours of extubation. Age-specific World
Health Organization recommendations were adopted in defining pneumonia.23 The presence of all 3
of the following criteria were required for a positive
diagnosis of pneumonia to be made:24,25
1. an increase in the amount or thickness of
endotracheal secretions in intubated children, or the development of a respiratory
rate higher than normal for patients age following extubation25;
2. an increase in the immature to total neutrophil ratio in peripheral blood by at least
0.05 to more than 0.224;
3. the development of new infiltrates on chest
radiograph.25
The first criterion was assessed initially by the
bedside nurse, who recorded sputum properties or
respiratory rate (as appropriate) on the patient
chart. The study data collectors checked patient
charts daily. Chest radiographs were assessed by a
radiologist, per the routine in our unit. This person
was unaware of the group to which the patient was
assigned.
The time it took for pneumonia to develop was
also recorded. Time to infection was calculated
from the time of randomization to the date when it
was established that all of the criteria for pneumonia were present. Other data collected from patient
records included duration of intubation, duration
of ICU stay, sputum culture where available, administration of antibiotics, and whether the patient was
immunosuppressed. These data were collected by
MAY/JUNE 2001
Scoble et al
Table III
Patient characteristics
Category
Control group
Study group
2.89 mo (0-19 y)
56.18 h (16.01-197.09)
3.23 d (0.95-10.95)
2 subjects
3.32 mo (0-16 y)
61.87 h (14.94-256.22)
3.58 d (0.91-14.05)
5 subjects
Table IV
Summary of results
Result
Control group
14 (5.71%)
3.26 d (0.34-31.63)
4
2
1
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
48 (21%)
Study group
12 (4.98%)
3.76 d (0.63-22.51)
NS
NS
5
2
1
0
7
1
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
62 (27%)
NS
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using the statistical packages Confidence Interval Analysis and Stata release
5.0. The effect of the control and study suctioning
techniques on the occurrence of pneumonia was
assessed by calculating the relative risk and
229
RESULTS
Exclusions from the study are listed in Table I.
Diagnostic categories for the patients included in
this study are shown in Table II. Age, duration of
intubation, length of ICU stay, and presence of
immunosuppressant drugs are shown in Table III.
All other results are summarized in Table IV. Pneumonia was diagnosed in a total of 26 children
(5.35%): in 14 of the 245 patients (5.71%) in the control group, and in 12 of the 241 patients (4.98%) in
the study group. The relative risk was 0.87, with a
95% CI of 0.41 to 1.85. The absolute risk reduction
was 0.74% (95% CI, 3.26% to 4.73%, P = .84). Controlling for duration of intubation by using logistic
regression did not alter the effect of the group
assignation (odds ratio 0.662, P = .343).
The incidence of pneumonia was higher in children who had been intubated for a longer period
(odds ratio 4.1, P < .0005). Time for infection to
develop ranged from 1 to 83 days. In the control
group the geometric mean was 3.26 days (95% CI,
0.34 to 31.63), and in the study group 3.76 days (95%
CI, 0.63 to 22.51)(P = .74).
As indicated in Table IV, cultures from the respiratory tract were obtained in 16 of the 26 children in
whom pneumonia was diagnosed. The culture was
positive in 11 children, with more than 1 organism
being isolated in 1 child in the control group and 3
children in the study group. Of the 460 subjects
who showed no evidence of pneumonia, 48 (21%) of
the 231 children in the control group and 62 (27%)
of the children in the study group were treated with
antibiotics while intubated (P = .17). These figures
do not include children who received 4 doses of
cephazolin prophylactically after cardiac surgery.
Data concerning the frequency of, and reason
for, the suction catheter being discarded in the
study group were analyzed for the first 400 patients
entered into the study. Of these 400, 93 were randomized to the study group and included in the
analysis. The suction catheter was discarded
before the end of the 24-hour period in 42 of the 93
cases, and a total of 112 catheter discards were
reported. Reasons for discarding the catheter
included the following: contamination (31); blockage of the catheter (27); accidental opening of a
new catheter (25); and other (29). The category
other included finding the wrong size suction
catheter at the bedside, being unaware of the randomization, the need to perform respiratory investigations, and performing suction while transferring
the patient to another area of the hospital. This
subset of 93 patients had a total intubation time of
321.55 days, and 472 suction catheters were used
230
Scoble et al
DISCUSSION
We found no significant difference between the
control and study groups in the incidence of pneumonia. The 95% CIs for absolute risk reduction
(3.3% to 4.7%) indicate that it is unlikely that
reusing suction catheters increases the risk of
pneumonia by more than 3.3%. Because this potential increase represents the worst-case situation,
we believe it is not clinically significant. There was
also no difference between the groups in the time
taken for infection to develop. Hence, our findings
challenge the notion that endotracheal suctioning
should be a sterile rather than clean procedure.
While Tablan et al4 suggest using each catheter
only once if an open suctioning technique is
employed, this recommendation is classed as category II, which may be based on suggestive clinical
or epidemiologic studies or on a theoretical rationale. Our study provides evidence to challenge the
recommendation.
The practice of reusing disposable suction
catheters is similar in 1 respect to using closedcircuit systems, in that both techniques involve
passing the same catheter several times down the
endotracheal tube. The findings of our study are
consistent with the studies of closed-circuit systems in adults, which have demonstrated the safety of these systems,15-19 and that suggest that it is
unnecessary to change closed-system catheters
routinely.20 A more recent suggestion that closed
systems may actually reduce the risk of ventilatoracquired pneumonia (by reducing the frequency of
manipulation of the ventilator circuit) is, as yet,
unsupported by research.4,26 Furthermore, several
potential problems have been reported with the
use of closed systems. Nurses frequently report
MAY/JUNE 2001
Scoble et al
their inability to effectively remove secretions13,17,27,28 and the need for more frequent suction.28 It has been suggested that closed systems
may not be suitable for patients with thick secretions,13 and build up of secretions has been found
to lead to narrowing of the lumen of the endotracheal tube, with the potential for increased airway
resistance and increased work of breathing.29 Other
problems reported with the use of closed systems
include ineffective rinsing of the catheter with
backflow of the rinsing solution into the endotracheal tube and hand contamination from condensate spray when the irrigation port is opened,
resulting in nursing staff needing to wear gloves
and increasing the cost of the procedure.13 Hence,
reusing ordinary disposable suction catheters may
be a viable alternative to closed systems.
Another cause for concern with closed systems is
their cost. Routine changing of closed system
catheters every 24 hours is more expensive than
conventional open suctioning, during which 1
catheter is used for each episode.19,27 Kollef et al20
demonstrated a cost saving of US $837 in 258
patients by not routinely changing the CSS
catheters. The cost of this practice is likely to be
similar to, or slightly cheaper than, a conventional
open system using 1 disposable catheter per
episode. However, using 1 disposable catheter for
24 hours is the cheapest option by far.
We did not determine the period of time for
which a catheter may safely be reused. It was clear
that in many cases catheters were not used for the
24-hour period that was intended in the study
design. The average life of a catheter for a subset of
the study population was 16 hours, but we did not
collect data to indicate the minimum length of time
for which catheters were used. Neither did we
attempt to prolong the usage of catheters beyond
24 hours. Practical issues are as relevant as safety in
determining the length of time for which catheters
should be used.
The diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia is difficult and has been the focus of several studies in
adults.30 While some researchers suggest the need
for invasive diagnostic testing by using bronchoscopic techniques,31 others have indicated that
clinical criteria have good diagnostic sensitivity
and correlate well with patient outcomes.20,32,33
There is no consensus on the use of nonbronchoscopic diagnostic tests.30 Many of the tests
described in these studies cannot be performed in
conjunction with smaller endotracheal tubes, and
no definitive method for diagnosing pneumonia in
the pediatric population has been identified. In
231
attention in the medical and allied health literature, mainly in relation to blood-borne infections
and the resterilizing of equipment that is intended to be disposable.35,36 Guidelines issued by the
National Health and Medical Research Council of
Australia37 relate specifically to these practices.
Our practice regarding suction catheters differs
significantly from those discussed in this literature; the catheters are not resterilized and are not
passed from patient to patient, hence the risk of
cross-contamination is not increased. No independent recommendations have been made that
relate to such practices. We suggest that the manufacturers use of the term single use in this
respect is imprecise, and that it would be more
appropriate for them to recommend single
patient use.
It was difficult to introduce the practice of
reusing suction catheters into our unit, and, in spite
of the results of this study, it continues to be
unpopular with some nurses. Our experience suggests that subjective impressions and ingrained
habits are difficult to overcome, which highlights
the problem of translating research findings into
practice.38,39
Limitations
Generalization of these results is limited
because our institution may not be representative.
Despite the high severity of illness, patients in our
unit (including patients in this study) had a short
intubation time, which is characteristic of our unit,
and this undoubtedly contributed to the low prevalence of pneumonia. Caution is therefore required
in generalizing our results to patients requiring
long-term ventilation. The patients in our study
generally had a relatively low risk of contracting
ventilator-associated pneumonia; clinicians may
find any increased risk less acceptable in patients
who are more vulnerable. Practical considerations
may limit the use of this technique in adults
because the larger volumes of secretions in these
patients may make blockage of catheters more
common.
The study required a high level of compliance
from the unit nursing staff in following the protocol.
Although we conducted an audit of a subset of
patients, it was difficult for the research team to
monitor the staffs willingness to comply throughout
the life of the study, and for the most part we had to
assume that patients received the management to
which they were allocated, and that data were
recorded accurately. We did observe a decrease in
compliance with documentation over time.
232
Scoble et al
CONCLUSION
This study investigated the practice of reusing
suction catheters in pediatric intensive care
patients for up to 24 hours. We found that the practice had no effect on either the rate of pneumonia or
the time taken to develop infection. We conclude
that this practice is both safe and cost effective.
We thank Ena Ahern, Dennis Kerr, Glenda Rolley,
Linda Savige, Sue Stevens, David Venables, and Cecilia White for their assistance with data collection and
the PICU nursing staff for their ongoing support.
REFERENCES
1. Craven D, Steger K. Epidemiology of nosocomial pneumonia:
new perspectives on an old disease. Chest 1995;108:1S-16S.
2. Fagon JY, Chastre J, Vuagnat A, Trouillet JL, Novara A, Gibert C.
Nosocomial pneumonia and mortality among patients in
intensive care units. JAMA 1996;275:866-9.
3. Fridkin SK, Welbel SF, Weinstein RA. Magnitude and prevention of nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit. Infect
Dis Clin North Am 1997;11:479-96.
4. Tablan OC, Anderson LJ, Arden NH, Breiman RF, Butler JC,
McNeil MM, et al. Guideline for prevention of nosocomial
pneumonia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:587-627.
5. Vallandigham JC, Johanson WGJ. Infections associated with
endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical
devices. Washington: American Society for Microbiology; 1989.
6. Knox A. Performing endotracheal suction on children: a literature review and implications for nursing practice. Intensive
Crit Care Nurs 1993;9:48-54.
7. Chang V. Protocol for prevention of complications of endotracheal intubation. Crit Care Nurse 1995;15(5):19-27.
8. Hagler DA, Traver GA. Endotracheal saline and suction
catheters: sources of lower airway contamination. Am J Crit
Care 1994;3:444-7.
9. AARC clinical practice guideline. Endotracheal suctioning of
mechanically ventilated adults and children with artificial airways. American Association for Respiratory Care. Respir Care
1993;38:500-4.
10. Fiorentini A. Potential hazards of tracheobronchial suctioning.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs 1992;8:217-26.
11. Tasota FJ, Fisher EM, Coulson CF, Hoffman LA. Protecting ICU
patients from nosocomial infections: practical measures for
favorable outcomes. Crit Care Nurse 1998;18(1):54-65.
12. Creamer E, Smyth E. Suction apparatus and the suctioning
procedure: reducing the infection risks. J Hosp Infect
1996;34:1-9.
13. Blackwood B, Webb C. Closed tracheal suctioning systems
and infection control in the intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect
1998;39:315-21.
MAY/JUNE 2001
Scoble et al
14. Ritz R, Scott LR, Coyle MB, Pierson DJ. Contamination of a multiple-use suction catheter in a closed-circuit system compared
to contamination of a disposable, single-use suction catheter.
Respir Care 1986;31:1086-91.
15. Conrad S, George R, Romero M, Owens M. Comparison of
nosocomial pneumonia rates in closed and open tracheal suction systems. Chest 1989;96:184S.
16. Deppe SA, Kelly JW, Thoi LL, Chudy JH, Longfield RN, Ducey
JP, et al. Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia,
and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care
closed-suction system: prospective, randomized study. Crit
Care Med 1990;18:1389-93.
17. Johnson KL, Kearney PA, Johnson SB, Niblett JB, MacMillan
NL, McClain RE. Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning:
costs and physiologic consequences. Crit Care Med
1994;22:658-66.
18. Mumford F. Use of a closed-suction catheter system on ventilated patients [abstract]. Am J Infect Control 1991;19:120.
19. Baker T, Taylor M, Wilson M, Rish J, Brazeal S. Evaluation of a
closed-system endotracheal suction catheter [abstract]. Am J
Infect Control 1989;17:97.
20. 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
Medicine 1997;156:466-72.
21. Pearson G, Shann F, Barry P, Vyas J, Thomas D, Powell C, et al.
Should paediatric intensive care be centralised? Trent versus
Victoria. Lancet 1997;349:1213-7.
22. Cross A, Roup B. Role of respiratory assistance devices in
endemic nosocomial pneumonia. Am J Med 1981;70:681-5.
23. World Health Organization. Technical bases for the WHO recommendations on the management of pneumonia in children
at first-level health facilities. WHO/ARI/91.20. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 1991.
24. Philip AGS. Neonatal sepsis and meningitis. Boston: G K Hall;
1985.
25. Rice TB, Pontus SPJ. Pneumonitis and interstitial disease. In:
Fuhrman BP, Zimmerman JJ, editors. Pediatric critical care.
2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1998. p. 485-511.
26. Cook D, De Jonghe B, Brochard L, Brun-Buisson C. Influence
of airway management on ventilator-associated pneumonia:
evidence from randomized trials. JAMA 1998;279:781-7.
233