Assessing the correct inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff: a larger pilot balloon increases the sensitivity of the ‘finger-pressure’ technique, but it remains poorly reliable in clinical practice
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, ISSN: 1573-2614, Vol: 33, Issue: 2, Page: 301-305
2019
- 13Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes13
- CrossRef13
- 13
- Captures31
- Readers31
- 31
Article Description
The pilot balloon palpation (or ‘finger-pressure’) method is still widely used to assess the endotracheal tube cuff inflation, despite consistent evidence of its poor sensitivity in recognizing cuff overinflation. It was recently speculated that this may be related to the lower wall tension (due to the smaller radius) of the pilot balloon as compared with the cuff, according to Laplace’s law. To verify this hypothesis and, secondarily, to assess whether the use of a ‘large’ pilot balloon (identical to the cuff) increases the reliability of this technique, 62 anesthetists (41 experienced anesthesiologists and 21 residents) were asked to estimate the pressure of a cuff inflated to 88 mmHg into a simulated trachea by feeling both a usual and a modified ‘large’ pilot balloon. A similar test was repeated at 40 mmHg. After palpation of the usual pilot balloon, only 35% of participants (49% of experienced anesthesiologists and 10% of residents) recognized considerable overinflation (88 mmHg), as compared with 87% of participants (95% of experienced anesthesiologists and 71% of residents) after palpation of the ‘large’ pilot balloon. Moreover, 89% of participants (85% of experienced anesthesiologists and 95% of residents) believed that pressure was higher in the ‘large’ balloon than in the normal one. However, only 32% of participants (51% of experienced anesthesiologists and none of residents) recognized slight overinflation (40 mmHg) after feeling the ‘large’ balloon. The pilot balloon size affects the sensitivity of the ‘finger-pressure’ technique, but it remains poorly reliable with a larger pilot balloon.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85062973269&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0158-8; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789999; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10877-018-0158-8; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0158-8; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10877-018-0158-8
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know