Evidence Hub

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of an Automatic Closed-Suction System in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Pneumonia: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Non-Inferiority, Investigator-Initiated Trial

D.-H. Joo, H. Park, Joonho Kim, Seo-Hee Yang, Tae Hun Kim, Hyung-Jun Kim, Myung Jin Song, S. Lim et al.

Diagnostics, 2024

54 participants

Abstract

Endotracheal suctioning is an essential but labor-intensive procedure, with the risk of serious complications. A brand new automatic closed-suction device was developed to alleviate the workload of healthcare providers and minimize those complications. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of the automatic suction system in mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia. In this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, investigator-initiated trial, mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia were randomized to the automatic device (intervention) or conventional manual suctioning (control). The primary efficacy outcome was the change in the modified clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) in 3 days. Secondary outcomes were the frequency of additional suctioning and the amount of secretion. Safety outcomes included adverse events or complications. A total of 54 participants, less than the pre-determined number of 102, were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the change in the CPIS over 72 h (−0.13 ± 1.58 in the intervention group, −0.58 ± 1.18 in the control group, p = 0.866), but the non-inferiority margin was not satisfied. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes and safety outcomes, with a tendency for more patients with improved tracheal mucosal injury in the intervention group. The novel automatic closed-suction system showed comparable efficacy and safety compared with conventional manual suctioning in mechanically…

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: 54 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