title: [Endotracheal suctioning using a 24-hour continuous system. Can costs and waste products be reduced?].
abstract: Suctioning of the airways is often required in critically ill, intubated, or tracheotomised patients. In addition to the primary cost of these disposable materials, expenditures for waste disposal and environmental problems due to plastics should also be considered. In this study, the primary costs and amount of waste products of the closed suction system "Trach Care" were compared with a conventional disposable system. Other advantages and disadvantages of a closed suction system are discussed. METHODS. In this prospective, randomised investigation, both the open disposable suction system and the closed Trach Care system were used, in 60 patients (30 in each group) who were intubated for 1 week or more. During the first 7 days, we counted the number of times endotracheal suctioning was performed and measured the time it took. The costs of purchasing the systems, amounts of waste products, and costs of disposal were compared. RESULTS. The frequency of endotracheal suctioning was quite different from patient to patient and varied from 6 to 41 times per day. On average it was necessary 15 times per day per patient in both groups. Using the disposable system, a mean time of 3.5 min was measured in contrast to 2.5 min with the closed system. The costs of purchase were much lower with the disposable system taking into account all materials needed (17.36 DM vs 53.36 DM per day), whereas the weight of litter produced by the closed system was lower (429 g vs 745 g per day), the costs of disposal being accordingly different. During endotracheal suctioning O2 desaturation was not observed with the closed system, whereas in patients with acute respiratory failure O2 saturation fell rapidly from 90% to as far as 70% when a disposable system was used. CONCLUSION. The closed Trach Care suction system is more expensive to acquire, but may reduce the risk of exogenous nosocomial pneumonias as disconnections from the ventilator are minimised. The workload, weight of waste products, and costs of disposal are lower using the Trach Care system. From the physician's viewpoint, the main advantage of the Trach Care system becomes evident in patients with acute respiratory failure and patients with elevated intracranial pressure. In these cases, we now favor the Trach Care system as a matter of principle.
authors.affiliation: Zentrum Anaesthesiologie, Rettungs- und Intensivmedizin, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Zielmann
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Grote
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sydow
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Radke
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Burchardi
mesh_terms: D000776:Anesthesiology / Q000191:economics / Q000295:instrumentation*; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D006801:Humans; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013396:Suction; D014132:Trachea; D014866:Waste Products / Q000191:economics*
chemical_list: D014866:Waste Products
vernacular_title: Endotracheale Absaugung durch 24-Stunden-Dauersysteme. Können Kosten und Müll reduziert werden?