Tracheal tube biofilm removal through a novel closed-suctioning system: an experimental study

E Aguilera Xiol,G Li Bassi,D Wyncoll,G Ntoumenopoulos,L Fernandez-Barat,J D Marti,T Comaru,F De Rosa,M Rigol,M Rinaudo,M Ferrer,A Torres
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev340
Abstract:Background: Tracheal tube biofilm develops during mechanical ventilation. We compared a novel closed-suctioning system vs standard closed-suctioning system in the prevention of tracheal tube biofilm. Methods: Eighteen pigs, on mechanical ventilation for 76 h, with P. aeruginosa pneumonia were randomized to be tracheally suctioned via the KIMVENT* closed-suctioning system (control group) or a novel closed-suctioning system (treatment group), designed to remove tracheal tube biofilm through saline jets and an inflatable balloon. Upon autopsy, two tracheal tube hemi-sections were dissected for confocal and scanning electron microscopy. Biofilm area, maximal and minimal thickness were computed. Biofilm stage was assessed. Results: Sixteen animals were included in the final analysis. In the treatment and control group, the mean (sd) pulmonary burden was 3.34 (1.28) and 4.17 (1.09) log cfu gr(-1), respectively (P=0.18). Tracheal tube P. aeruginosa colonization was 5.6 (4.9-6.3) and 6.2 (5.6-6.9) cfu ml(-1) (median and interquartile range) in the treatment and control group, respectively (P=0.23). In the treatment group, median biofilm area was 3.65 (3.22-4.21) log10 μm2 compared with 4.49 (4.27-4.52) log10 μm2 in the control group (P=0.031). In the treatment and control groups, the maximal biofilm thickness was 48.3 (26.7-71.2) µm (median and interquartile range) and 88.8 (43.8-125.7) µm, respectively. The minimal thickness in the treatment and control group was 0.6 (0-4.0) µm and 23.7 (5.3-27.8) µm (P=0.040) (P=0.017). Earlier stages of biofilm development were found in the treatment group (P<0.001). Conclusions: The novel CSS reduces biofilm accumulation within the tracheal tube. A clinical trial is required to confirm these findings and the impact on major outcomes.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?