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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023;55(1):38-45.
doi: 10.5114/ait.2023.125584.

Comparison of positive pressure extubation with traditional extubation in critically ill patients - a randomised control study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of positive pressure extubation with traditional extubation in critically ill patients - a randomised control study

Ajeetviswanath Thanjavur Prabhakaran et al. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2023.

Abstract

Background: Two extubation methods are commonly used in the intensive care unit (ICU): the traditional method with endotracheal suctioning and the positive- pressure method without suctioning. Better physiological outcomes were found in lab studies using the latter, as the air passing between the endotracheal tube and the larynx pushes out the collected subglottic secretions, which can be suctioned.

Methods: 70 mechanically ventilated patients in a tertiary ICU were randomised into 2 groups of 35 patients each. At the end of the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), the positive pressure extubation (PPE) group was given a pressure support of 15 cm H 2 O and a positive end expiratory pressure of 10 cm H 2 O for 5 minutes while the other group (traditional extubation - TE) was extubated directly. We compared the lung ultrasound scores (LUS), chest X-ray findings, alveolar arterial oxygen gradient changes, adverse clinical events, ICU-free days and reintubation rates between the two groups.

Results: Median LUS at the end of the SBT was similar between the two groups. However, the median post-extubation LUS at 30 minutes, 6 hours, 24 hours in the PPE group [5 (4-8) ( P = 0.04), 5 (3-8) ( P = 0.02), 4 (3-7) ( P = 0.02), respectively] were significantly lower compared to the TE group [6 (6-8), 6 (5-7.5), 6 (5-7.5), respectively]. There was a persistent lowering of the scores even at the end of 24 hours in the PPE group, while the percentage of patients without adverse clinical events was significantly higher (80% vs. 57.14%, P = 0.04).

Conclusions: The study shows that positive pressure extubation is a safe procedure which improves aeration and reduces adverse events.

Keywords: lung ultrasound; positive pressure extubation; traditional extubation; mechanical ventilation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

none.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
CONSORT diagram
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Line diagram showing the lung USG scores at various time points in both groups

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Andreu MF, Dotta ME, Bezzi MG, et al. . Safety of positive pressure extubation technique. Respir Care 2019; 64: 899-907. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06541. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Asai T, Koga K, Vaughan RS. Respiratory complications associated with tracheal intubation and extubation. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 767-775. doi: 10.1093/bja/80.6.767. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guglielminotti J, Constant I, Murat I. Evaluation of routine tracheal extubation in children: inflating or suctioning technique? Br J Anaesth 1998; 81: 692-695. doi: 10.1093/bja/81.5.692. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Difficult Airway Society Extubation Guidelines Group; Mitchell V, Dravid R, Patel A, Swampillai C, Higgs A. Difficult Airway Society Guidelines for the management of tracheal extubation. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 318-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07075.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. d’Escrivan T, Guery B. Prevention and treatment of aspiration pneumonia in intensive care units. Treat Respir Med 2005; 4: 317-324. doi: 10.2165/00151829-200504050-00003. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types