The Cochrane database of systematic reviews··
Comparison of Breathing Tubes With and Without Seals for Newborn Babies
Updated
Abstract
Among 76 infants, 69 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for assessing cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes.
- Cuffed endotracheal tubes may reduce the likelihood of reintubation for any reason compared to uncuffed tubes.
- The frequency of postextubation stridor is uncertain, with wide confidence intervals indicating variability in outcomes.
- No cases of subglottic stenosis were clinically diagnosed, but endoscopic confirmation was not available.
- Accidental extubation rates and all-cause mortality during hospitalization remain uncertain due to wide confidence intervals.
- Evidence is limited by the small sample size and potential biases in the single randomized controlled trial identified.
Simplified
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure in neonates, the risks of which are well-described. Some endotracheal tubes (ETT) are equipped with a cuff that can be inflated after insertion of the ETT in the airway to limit leak or aspiration. Cuffed ETTs have been shown in larger children and adults to reduce gas leak around the ETT, ETT exchange, accidental extubation, and exposure of healthcare workers to anesthetic gas during surgery. With improved understanding of neonatal airway anatomy and the widespread use of cuffed ETTs by anesthesiologists, the use of cuffed tubes is increasing in neonates.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated or non-inflated) compared to uncuffed ETTs for respiratory support in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and CINAHL on 20 August 2021; we also searched trial registers and checked reference lists to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-randomized trials comparing cuffed (inflated and non-inflated) versus uncuffed ETTs in newborns. We sought to compare 1. inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; 2. non-inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; and 3. inflated, cuffed versus non-inflated, cuffed ETT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified one eligible RCT for inclusion that compared the use of cuffed (inflated if ETT leak greater than 20% with cuff pressure 20 cm HO or less) versus uncuffed ETT. The author provided a spreadsheet with individual data. Among 76 infants in the original manuscript, 69 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this Cochrane Review. We found possible bias due to lack of blinding and other bias. We are very uncertain about frequency of postextubation stridor, because the confidence intervals (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) were very wide (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.25; risk difference (RD) 0.03, -0.11 to 0.18; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate was diagnosed with postextubation subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy was not available to confirm the clinical diagnosis. We are very uncertain about reintubation for stridor or subglottic stenosis because the CIs of the RR were very wide (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.49; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate had surgical intervention (e.g. endoscopic balloon dilation, cricoid split, tracheostomy) for stridor or subglottic stenosis (1 study, 69 participants). Neonates randomized to cuffed ETT may be less likely to have a reintubation for any reason (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about accidental extubation because the CIs of the RR were wide (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization because the CIs of the RR were extremely wide (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 58.39; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is one ongoing trial. We classified two studies as awaiting classification because outcome data were not reported separately for newborns and older infants. 2
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonates is limited by a small number of babies in a single RCT with possible bias. There is very low certainty evidence for all outcomes of this review. CIs of the estimate for postextubation stridor were wide. No neonate had clinical evidence for subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy results were not available to assess the anatomy. Additional RCTs are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated and non-inflated) in the neonatal population. These studies must include neonates and be conducted both for short-term use (in the setting of the operating room) and chronic use (in the setting of chronic lung disease) of cuffed ETTs.
Related papers
Nov '17
Comparison of cuffed and uncuffed breathing tubes for children under eight during general anesthesia
cited by 25 papers
systematic review
Nov '22
Folic acid supplements and malaria risk and severity in people using antifolate malaria drugs in affected areas
cited by 29 papers
systematic review
Aug '15
Silver-coated breathing tubes to prevent lung infections in critically ill patients on ventilators
cited by 30 papers
systematic review