Effectiveness of Continuous Cuff Pressure Control in Preventing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials*

 

by Maertens, Bert; Lin, Frances; Chen, Yingyan; Rello, Jordi; Lathyris, Dimitrios; Blot, Stijn

 

Critical Care Medicine: October 2022 - Volume 50 - Issue 10 - p 1430-1439

 

OBJECTIVES: 

Microaspiration of subglottic secretions is the main pathogenic mechanism for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Adequate inflation of the endotracheal cuff is pivotal to providing an optimal seal of the extraluminal airway. However, cuff pressure substantially fluctuates due to patient or tube movements, which can induce microaspiration. Therefore, devices for continuous cuff pressure control (CCPC) have been developed in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of CCPC in VAP prevention.

DATA SOURCES: 

A systematic search of Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was conducted up to February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION: 

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the impact of CCPC versus intermittent cuff pressure control on the occurrence of VAP.

DATA EXTRACTION: 

Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI for VAP incidence between groups. Secondary outcome measures included mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and ICU stay. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

DATA SYNTHESIS: 

Eleven RCTs with 2,092 adult intubated patients were included. The use of CCPC was associated with a reduced risk of VAP (OR, 0.51). Meta-analyses of secondary endpoints showed no significant difference in mortality but significant differences in durations of MV (mean difference, –1.07 d) and ICU stay (mean difference, –3.41 d) in favor of CCPC. However, the risk of both reporting and individual study bias was considered important. The main issues were the lack of blinding, potential commercial conflicts of interest of study authors and high heterogeneity due to methodological differences between studies, differences in devices used for CCPC and in applied baseline preventive measures. Certainty of the evidence was considered “very low.”

CONCLUSIONS: 

The use of CCPC was associated with a reduction in VAP incidence; however, this was based on very low certainty of evidence due to concerns related to risk of bias and inconsistency.