The effect of adhesive tape versus endotracheal tube fastener in critically ill adults: the endotracheal tube securement (ETTS) randomized controlled trial

Janna S Landsperger, Jesse M Byram, Bradley D Lloyd, Todd W Rice, Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group, David R Janz, Janna S Landsperger, Jesse M Byram, Bradley D Lloyd, Todd W Rice, Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group, David R Janz

Abstract

Background: The optimal securement method of endotracheal tubes is unknown but should prevent dislodgement while minimizing complications. The use of an endotracheal tube fastener might reduce complications among critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation.

Methods: In this pragmatic, single-center, randomized trial, critically ill adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) and expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than 24 h were randomized to adhesive tape or endotracheal tube fastener at the time of intubation. The primary endpoint was a composite of any of the following: presence of lip ulcer, endotracheal tube dislodgement (defined as moving at least 2 cm), ventilator-associated pneumonia, or facial skin tears anytime between randomization and the earlier of death or 48 h after extubation. Secondary endpoints included duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and in-hospital mortality.

Results: Of 500 patients randomized over a 12-month period, 162 had a duration of mechanical ventilation less than 24 h and 40 had missing outcome data, leaving 153 evaluable patients randomized to tube fastener and 145 evaluable patients randomized to adhesive tape. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint occurred 13 times in 12 (7.8%) patients in the tube fastener group and 30 times in 25 (17.2%) patients in the adhesive tape group (p = 0.014) for an overall incidence of 22.0 versus 52.6 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively (p = 0.020). Lip ulcers occurred in 4 (2.6%) versus 11 (7.3%) patients, or an incidence rate of 6.5 versus 19.5 per 1000 patient ventilator days (p = 0.053) in the fastener and tape groups, respectively. The endotracheal tube was dislodged 7 times in 6 (3.9%) patients in the tube fastener group and 16 times in 15 (10.3%) patients in the tape group (p = 0.03), reflecting incidences of 11.9 and 28.1 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively. Facial skin tears were similar between the groups. Mechanical ventilation duration and ICU and hospital mortality did not differ.

Conclusion: The use of the endotracheal tube fastener to secure the endotracheal tubes reduces the rate of a composite outcome that included lip ulcers, facial skin tears, or endotracheal tube dislodgement compared to adhesive tape.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03760510. Retrospectively registered on November 30, 2018.

Keywords: Critical care; Endotracheal tube; Endotracheal tube dislodgement; Facial skin tear; Intensive care units; Lip ulcer; Mechanical ventilation; Tube fastener.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Health Science Committee 1 at Vanderbilt University, and the need for informed consent from the patients was waived with a participant notification sheet (#170596).

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Inclusion and enrollment of patients. CONSORT diagram showing the enrollment of patients into the endotracheal tube securement (ETTS) randomized controlled trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Primary endpoint. The composite of tube dislodgement, lip ulcer, and skin tear per 1000 patient ventilator days was significantly lower in the endotracheal tube fastener group compared to that in the adhesive tape group (p = 0.017). There were no incidences of VAP

References

    1. Simpson GD, Ross MJ, McKeown DW, Ray DC. Tracheal intubation in the critically ill: a multi-centre national study of practice and complications. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:792–799. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer504.
    1. Barnason S, Graham J, Wild MC, Jensen LB, Rasmussen D, Schulz P, Woods S, Carder B. Comparison of two endotracheal tube securement techniques on unplanned extubation, oral mucosa, and facial skin integrity. Heart Lung. 1998;27(6):409–417. doi: 10.1016/S0147-9563(98)90087-5.
    1. Mohammad H, Hassan M. Endotracheal tube securements: effectiveness of three techniques among orally intubated patients. Egyptian J Chest Dis Tuberc. 2015;64:183–196. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcdt.2014.09.006.
    1. Zaratkiewicz S, Teegardin C. Retrospective review of the reduction of oral pressure ulcers in mechanically ventilated patients: a change in practice. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2012;35(3):247–254. doi: 10.1097/CNQ.0b013e3182542de3.
    1. Carlson J, Mayrose J, Krause R, Jehle D. Extubation force: tape versus endotracheal tube holders. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(6):686–691. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.05.013.
    1. Shimizu T, Mizutani T, Yamashita S, Hagiya K, Tanaka M. Endotracheal tube extubation force: adhesive tape versus endotracheal tube holder. Respir Care. 2011;56(11):1825–1829. doi: 10.4187/respcare.00954.
    1. Anne G, Hughes D, Cook R, Henson R, et al. Best practice in stabilization of oral endotracheal tubes: a systematic review. Australian Crit Care. 2005;18(4):158–165. doi: 10.1016/S1036-7314(05)80029-3.
    1. Chastre J, Fagon JV. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165(7):867–903. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.165.7.2105078.
    1. Dupont WD, Plummer WD. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Controlled Clin Trials. 1990;11:116–128. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(90)90005-M.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner