Evidence Hub

Continuous versus intermittent cuff pressure monitoring in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Yan-Shuo Wu, Yunhao Su, Liping Zhao, Xi Wang, Kun Zhang, Yu-Hong Chen, Xiaokun Zhang, Peng Gao et al.

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, 2025

108 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

While continuous cuff pressure monitoring (CCPM) offers theoretical advantages in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), its clinical benefits remain controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether CCPM reduces VAP incidence compared with intermittent cuff pressure monitoring (ICPM) and its impact on nursing workload. We conducted a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial across eight tertiary hospitals in China. Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to CCPM (n = 105) or ICPM (n = 108). Patients with tracheotomy, nasotracheal intubation or contraindications for semi-recumbent positioning were excluded. Randomisation was conducted using sealed opaque envelopes. The primary outcome was VAP incidence, diagnosed per Chinese Respiratory Society guidelines. Secondary outcomes included nursing workload, the percentage of time cuff pressure (Pcuff) was maintained at the target range (25–30 cm H2O), the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and ICU mortality. The VAP incidence did not differ significantly between the CCPM and ICPM groups (16.2% vs. 17.6%; P = 0.79), but the CCPM group significantly reduced the cumulative time spent on Pcuff adjustments within 48 h (85 s vs. 660 s; P 0.05). Continuous cuff pressure monitoring did not reduce VAP incidence compared with ICPM but significantly decreased nursing workload and improved Pcuff control, suggesting that CCPM may…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 108 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free