Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;22(1):44-45.
doi: 10.1177/1757177420963775. Epub 2020 Oct 15.

Closed tracheal suctioning systems in the era of COVID-19: is it time to consider them as a gold standard?

Guglielmo Imbriaco  1   2 , Alessandro Monesi  1   2
Affiliations

Closed tracheal suctioning systems in the era of COVID-19: is it time to consider them as a gold standard?

Guglielmo Imbriaco et al. J Infect Prev. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Tracheal suctioning is one of the most common activities performed in intensive care units (ICU) and is recognised as a high-risk procedure by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Aerosol-generating procedures on critical patients with COVID-19 present an increased risk of contamination for medical workers. In the time of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic, with a massive number of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, the open tracheal suction technique (OTST) represents a serious threat for medical workers, even if they are wearing full personal protective equipment. Closed tracheal suction systems (CTSS) allow the removal of tracheobronchial secretions without disconnecting ventilatory circuits, preventing alveolar derecruitment, gas exchange deterioration and hypoxia. CTSS reduce the risk of pathogens entering the respiratory circuit and appear to be a cost-effective solution. CTSS should be considered mandatory for patients in the ICU with an artificial airway, in order to reduce bioaerosol exposure risk for medical workers and contamination of the surrounding environment.

Keywords: COVID-19; Tracheal suction; healthcare professional protection; intensive care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Bahl P, Doolan C, de Silva C, Chughtai AA, Bourouiba L, MacIntyre CR. (2020) Airborne or droplet precautions for health workers treating COVID-19? Journal of Infectious Diseases. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa189. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elmansoury A, Said H. (2017) Closed suction system versus open suction. Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis 66(3): 509–515.
    1. Kuriyama A, Umakoshi N, Fujinaga J, Takada T. (2015) Impact of closed versus open tracheal suctioning systems for mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine 41(3): 402–411. - PubMed
    1. Solà I, Benito S. (2007) Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4): CD004581. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Pessoa-Silva CL, Conly J. (2012) Aerosol Generating Procedures and Risk of Transmission of Acute Respiratory Infections to Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 7(4): e35797. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources