Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 14, 2025

A Novel Rescue Technique for Difficult Intubation and Difficult Ventilation
Published on: January 17, 2011
Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Automated Intelligent Suction Device (VapCare) Among Mechanically Ventilated
M S Varnitha1, P Murlidhara2, Archana Sharma3
1Department of Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care, Apollo Hospitals, Bengaluru, India.
Background:
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a significant concern in intensive care units (ICUs), affecting 7-32% of mechanically ventilated patients, which mounts to higher morbidity and mortality and extended hospital stays. Preventing VAP involves meticulous secretion management and oral hygiene, but in low-resource settings, VAP remains common owing to the absence of standardized oral care protocols. This randomized study assessed the efficacy and safety of the VapCare automated secretion management device in reducing microaspirations and improving clinical outcomes in ventilated patients.
Methods:
A single-center, open-label randomized trial was conducted involving adult neurocritical care patients requiring mechanical ventilation for 48 h or more, excluding tracheostomized patients and patients with bleeding disorders, difficult airways, or preexisting pneumonia. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group, receiving standard ICU care with manual oropharyngeal suctioning, or a study group, receiving VapCare management. We compared lung ultrasound scores (LUS), clinical pulmonary infection scores (CPIS), secretion volumes, tracheal cultures, and chest X-ray results from day 1 to day 5.
Results:
The VapCare group demonstrated a slower rise in LUS and CPIS compared to the control group. The median CPIS rose from 1 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-2) on the first day to 5 (IQR 2.75-6) on the fifth day in the control group versus 1 (IQR 0-2) on the first day to 3 (IQR 2-3) on the fifth day in the VapCare group (p < 0.001). The median LUS increased from 0 (IQR 0-2) on the first day to 6 (IQR 2-10) on the fifth in the control group, whereas the change was more muted in the VapCare group (0 [IQR 1-2] on the first day to 4 [IQR 2-6] on the fifth day [p < 0.001]). Additionally, chest X-ray scores were lower in the VapCare group (p = 0.028). Tracheal culture microbial growth and mortality were similar in both groups, but the length of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the VapCare group (p = 0.004). One patient in the VapCare group sustained mucosal erosions on the lip due to the VapCare mouthpiece.
Conclusions:
The VapCare device effectively reduces microaspiration and mitigates lung changes, demonstrating its potential to reduce the burden of microaspiration and suctioning in ventilated patients.
More Related Videos
06:57Use of an Integrated Low-Flow Anesthetic Vaporizer, Ventilator, and Physiological Monitoring System for Rodents
Published on: July 9, 2020
05:39Author Spotlight: A Non-Intubated Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery with Multimodal Analgesia and Sevoflurane Inhalation Anesthesia
Published on: May 26, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Suctioning the Nasopharyngeal Airway
Equipment Required
Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
Acute Respiratory Failure-V
Ensure that patients are monitored continuously for their response to therapy, including changes in...
Suctioning the Oropharyngeal Airway
After assembling the equipment, the nurse should practice hand hygiene and don appropriate PPE according to infection control guidelines to avoid the...