Abstract
Background: Monitoring cuff pressure on intubated patients is important to prevent tracheal ischemia and aspiration. The goal of this study is to determine the accuracy of the AG Cuffill Pressure Manometer (Hospitech Respiration, Kiryat Matalon, Petach Tikva, Israel) by measuring various pressures compared to the Fluke VT Plus HF Gas Flow Analyzer (Biomedical, Cleveland, OH). Our hypothesis is that there will be no difference between the readings of the two manometers when measured at various pressures. Methods: A model trachea composed of large bore tubing (Care Fusion, Yorba Linda, CA), a 7.5-mm endotracheal tube (ETT) (Covidien, Mansfield, MA), and the Fluke, were used to test the accuracy of the AG Cuffill. The ETT was inserted into the model trachea and the Fluke was zeroed. The cuff was inflated until the Fluke read pressures of 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm H2O. By utilizing two stopcocks (Smiths Medical, Dublin, OH) to isolate the Fluke, the pressures were able to be independently analyzed. Each pressure was then obtained using the Cuffill, and recorded. Three trials were performed at each of the 4 targeted pressures. Results: At the targeted pressures, the Cuffill consistently overestimated the measured pressure when compared to the Fluke (P < .001). When tested at a pressure of 10 cm H2O the Cuffill measured the most accurate with an average of 12 cm H2O. As the pressure was increased to 40 cm H2O, the Cuffill accuracy decreased, with a mean of 44 cm H2O. Conclusions: At each targeted pressure, the Cuffill had a 4 cm H2O or less difference than the control. Although, the difference in pressure measured between the Cuffill and the Fluke was statistically significant, we found that it was not clinically significant when measuring within therapeutic ranges (20-30 cm H2O). The Cuffill is a quick and accessible pressure manometer and can be used as a convenient bedside tool to check cuff pressure.
Footnotes
Commercial Relationships: None
- Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises
In this issue
