The effects of open and closed system endotracheal suctioning methods on suctioning frequency, amount of secretion, and haemodynamics: A single-blind, randomised, 2 × 2 crossover trial.

Background: Several studies have revealed that clinicians cannot suction all available secretion in the trachea and perform more frequent suctioning with a closed suctioning system (CSS) than with an open suctioning system (OSS). There are also studies claiming that the CSS is as effective as the OSS, based on either the amount of secretion, the frequency of suctioning, or haemodynamic parameters alone. However, there is no study examining all at once.
Objectives: This study aims to determine whether the CSS is as effective for secretion removal, suctioning frequency, tidal volume (V _T ), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO ₂ ) as the OSS.
Methods: The study used a single-blind, randomised, 2 × 2 crossover (2-method, 2-arm, 2-period) design. One hundred intubated patients were randomly assigned to two study arms. Thirty-four were randomised to the CSS on the first day and the OSS on the second day (AB arm), and 35 were randomised to the OSS on the first day and the CSS on the second day (BA arm). A 12-h washout period was set between them. Haemodynamic parameters were measured just before suctioning and in the 5th minute after suctioning. The secretions obtained after suctioning were weighed, and the frequency of suctioning was recorded.
Results: There were no effects of method, period, or carryover on suctioning frequency and amount of secretion in the 2 × 2 crossover design t-test (p > 0.05). In the OSS, there was a weak, linear, and negative correlation between the amount of secretion and SpO _2, and between V _T and SpO ₂ measured before and after suctioning (p < 0.05 for all).
Conclusions: Open and closed suctioning systems were similar in terms of haemodynamic alterations, amounts of secretion, and frequency of suctioning. The CSS was as effective as the OSS.
Registration Number: NCT04053751.
(Copyright © 2023 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)