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

Joo,Park,Kim,Yang,Kim,Kim,Song,Lim,Kim,Bae,Ahn,Yoon,Park,Lee,Lee,Lee,Lee,Cho
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14111068
IF: 3.6
2024-05-22
Diagnostics
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 ventilated patients with pneumonia.
medicine, general & internal
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel automated closed suction system in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Specifically, the researchers hypothesize that the automated closed suction system is non-inferior in efficacy and safety compared to the traditional closed manual suction system in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. ### Research Background and Objectives - **Research Background**: - Endotracheal suctioning is a common but labor-intensive procedure that, if performed improperly, can lead to serious complications (such as bleeding, infection, hypoxemia, etc.). - With the aging population, the number of patients with acute or chronic respiratory failure is rapidly increasing, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the shortage of nurses, thus necessitating alternatives to manual suctioning. - To this end, a novel A-1000 automated closed suction device has been developed to reduce the workload of healthcare personnel and minimize related complications. - **Research Objectives**: - To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the novel automated closed suction system in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. - The study hypothesizes that the novel automated closed suction system is non-inferior in efficacy and safety compared to the traditional manual closed suction system. ### Main Findings - **Efficacy Results**: - After 72 hours, there was no significant difference in the change of the adjusted Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) between the two groups (intervention group: -0.13 ± 1.58; control group: -0.58 ± 1.18, p = 0.866), but it did not meet the non-inferiority margin requirement. - There was also no significant difference in the total amount of secretions and other secondary efficacy indicators between the two groups. - **Safety Results**: - There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events and complications between the two groups. - The intervention group had a minor device failure rate (3.85%) and bacterial contamination at the catheter connection site was detected in 2 patients (8.70%). In summary, although the study results did not fully demonstrate the non-inferiority of the novel automated closed suction system, it showed comparable results to the traditional manual closed suction system in terms of efficacy and safety.