Best evidence statement (BESt) Tracheal cuff pressure management
Guideline Developer(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
Date Released
Full Text Guideline
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).
Implementation of the Guideline
An implementation strategy was not provided.
Audit Criteria/Indicators
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
- Improved effectiveness of measurement of cuff pressures
- Decreased risk of tracheal wall damage, decompensation due to inadequate ventilation, and/or aspiration
If cuff is over distended tracheal damage can occur and if cuff is underinflated inadequate ventilation can occur and/or aspiration.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Table of Recommendation Strength
Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations) |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Qualifying Statements
This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.
Methodology
Searches of Electronic Databases
Search Strategy
- Databases: Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar
- Search Terms: Cuff pressures, endotracheal tubes, tracheostomy tubes, minimal leak technique, minimal occlusive volume
- Limits, Filters, Search Dates: Neonatal, Pediatric; 2001-2009
- Date Search Done: April 2012-August 2012
Not stated
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Systematic Review
Not stated
Expert Consensus
Not stated
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Peer Review
This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by 2 independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.
Identifying Information and Availability
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Tracheal cuff pressure management. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Apr 1. 4 p. [10 references]
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
Not stated
Team Leader/Author: Jessica Sexton, BHS, RRT-NPS, Transitional Care Center & Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Team Members/Co-Authors: Tonie Perez, BHS, RRT-NPS, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; Amy Wolf, BS, RRT-NPS, Transport
Support/Consultant: Cyndi White, MSc, RRT-NPS, FAARC, Research Respiratory Therapist
Conflict of interest declaration forms are filed with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Evidence-based Decision Making (CCHMC EBDM) group. No financial or intellectual conflicts of interest were found.
This is the current release of the guideline.
Electronic copies: Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.
The following are available:
- Judging the strength of a recommendation. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2009 May 7. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
- Grading a body of evidence to answer a clinical question. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2009 May 7. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
- Table of evidence levels. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2009 May 7. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.
In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document.
None available
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on May 23, 2013.
This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:
Copies of this Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of the BESt include the following:
- Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization's process for developing and implementing evidence based care
- Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization's website
- The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents
- Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care
Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked by the organization is appreciated.
Scope
Diseases and conditions requiring cuffed endotracheal tubes or cuffed tracheostomy tubes
Management
Anesthesiology
Internal Medicine
Pediatrics
Pulmonary Medicine
Advanced Practice Nurses
Nurses
Physician Assistants
Physicians
To evaluate, in pediatric patients with cuffed endotracheal or tracheostomy tubes, if minimal leak technique (MLT)/minimal occlusive volume (MOV) technique compared to using a cuff manometer is a more effective way to measure cuff pressures
Neonatal and pediatric patients with a cuffed endotracheal tube or cuffed tracheostomy tube
- Tracheal cuff pressure measurement (cuff manometer)
- Minimal leak technique (MLT)/minimal occlusive volume (MOV) technique
Effectiveness of measuring cuff pressures
Recommendations
The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1aâ5b) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.
It is recommended that cuff pressure be measured in the neonatal and pediatric population.
Note 1: There are no studies that compare any one of these measurement approaches to another in neonates and pediatrics therefore one approach over another cannot be recommended. Research among the neonatal and pediatric populations would prove beneficial.
Note 2: At Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), current policy is to utilize minimal occlusive volume (MOV) and measure pressures with a cuff manometer, at least once per shift.
Definitions:
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Table of Recommendation Strength
Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations) |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
None provided
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
Getting Better
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse⢠(NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.