PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Background
This study was conducted to evaluate the level of environment contamination before and after endotracheal suctioning using an open or closed suction system in mechanically ventilated patients.
Methods
The subjects of this study included 60 patients who were mechanically ventilated from December 2016 to May 2017. Before and after application of an open or closed suction system, blood agar plates (BAPs) were placed 50 cm and 100 cm from the suction port and exposed for 30 minutes. The number of colonies in the BAP culture media was measured.
Results
There was a significant difference in the number of colonies on BAPs exposed before and after applying the open suction system at distances of 50 cm (1st; P=0.002, 2nd; P≤0.001) and 100 cm (1st; P=0.040, 2nd; P≤0.001) on both the first day and second day. There was a significant difference in the number of colonies on BAPs exposed before and after applying the closed suction system at the distance of 100 cm (P=0.009) on the first day and at the distance of 50 cm (P=0.043) on the second day. When the open suction system was applied, it was confirmed that the number of colonies was higher after than before suction.
REFERENCES
1. Lough MD, Doershuk CF, Stern RC. In: Pediatric respiratory therapy. 3rd ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1985. pp. 148-191.
2. Simmons CL. How frequently should endotracheal suctioning be undertaken? Am J Crit Care. 1997; 6:4–6.
3. AARC clinical practice guideline. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated adults and children with artificial airways. American Association for Respiratory Care. Respir Care. 1993; 38:500–504.
4. Paul-Allen J, Ostrow CL. Survey of nursing practices with closed-system suctioning. Am J Crit Care. 2000; 9:9–17.
5. DePew CL, Noll ML. Inline closed-system suctioning: a research analysis. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 1994; 13:73–83.
6. Lasocki S, Lu Q, Sartorius A, Fouillat D, Remerand F, Rouby JJ. Open and closed-circuit endotracheal suctioning in acute lung injury: efficiency and effects on gas exchange. Anesthesiology. 2006; 104:39–47.
7. Edita H, Jana N, Katarína B. Closed versus open suction system of the airways in the prevention of infection in ventilated patients. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw. 2014; 5:63–71.
8. Cobley M, Atkins M, Jones PL. Environmental contamination during tracheal suction. A comparison of disposable conventional catheters with a multiple-use closed system device. Anaesthesia. 1991; 46:957–961.
9. Dancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014; 27:665–690.
10. Yoo JH. The recent trend and perspective of infection control in the republic of Korea. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2016; 21:1–8.
11. Weinstein RA. Epidemiology and control of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Am J Med. 1991; 91:179S–184S.
12. Morgan DJ, Rogawski E, Thom KA, Johnson JK, Perencevich EN, Shardell M, et al. Transfer of multidrug-resistant bacteria to healthcare workers\' gloves and gowns after patient contact increases with environmental contamination. Crit Care Med. 2012; 40:1045–1051.
13. Muzslay M, Moore G, Turton JF, Wilson AP. Dissemination of antibiotic-resistant enterococci within the ward environment: the role of airborne bacteria and the risk posed by unrecognized carriers. Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41:57–60.
14. Sehulster L, Chinn RY. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003; 52:1–42.
15. Adams DH, Hughes M, Elliott TS. Microbial colonization of closed-system suction catheters used in liver transplant patients. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 1997; 13:72–76.
16. Topeli A, Harmanci A, Cetinkaya Y, Akdeniz S, Unal S. Comparison of the effect of closed versus open endotracheal suction systems on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Hosp Infect. 2004; 58:14–19.
17. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, Mora ML, Sierra A. Tracheal suction by closed system without daily change versus open system. Intensive Care Med. 2006; 32:538–544.
18. Pasquarella C, Pitzurra O, Savino A. The index of microbial air contamination. J Hosp Infect. 2000; 46:241–256.
19. Blackwood B. The practice and perception of intensive care staff using the closed suctioning system. J Adv Nurs. 1998; 28:1020–1029.
20. Maggiore SM, Iacobone E, Zito G, Conti C, Antonelli M, Proietti R. Closed versus open suctioning techniques. Minerva Anestesiol. 2002; 68:360–364.
21. Creamer E, Shore AC, Deasy EC, Galvin S, Dolan A, Walley N, et al. Air and surface contamination patterns of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on eight acute hospital wards. J Hosp Infect. 2014; 86:201–208.
Table 1.
Homogeneity test for general characteristic of participants (N=60)
Table 2.
Differences in the total bacterial count from BAP according to the day of the two suction system (N=60)
| Day |
M±SD (CFU/m2/h) |
t | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | Closed | |||
| 1st | 57.23±122.32 | 1.22±3.67 | 3.546 | 0.001 |
| 2nd | 82.80±158.45 | 1.28±3.96 | 3.984 | ＜0.001 |
Table 3.
Differences in the total bacterial count from BAP according to the distance of the two suction system (N=60)
| Distance |
M±SD (CFU/m2/h) |
t | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | Closed | |||
| 50 cm | 33.64±68.12 | 0.53±1.87 | 5.322 | ＜0.001 |
| 100 cm | 36.38±78.85 | 0.72±2.59 | 4.951 | ＜0.001 |
Table 4.
Total bacterial count measured by BAP before and after tracheal suction (N=60)
XML Download