Comparison of Automatic and Manual Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Monitoring in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients
NCT ID: NCT06965400
Last Updated: 2025-11-25
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
32 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-05-02
2025-08-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparison of the Frequency of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Intubated Patients Followed Up With Automatic Cuff Pressure Controller and Manual Cuff Pressure Controller in Pediatric Intensive Care
NCT05918172
Cuff Pressure Regulation Apparatus for Tracheal Intubation in Children
NCT04413318
Effects of Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Control on Microaspiration of Gastric Contents
NCT04061083
Measuring Lung Pressures in Critically Ill Children Who Are on Mechanical Ventilation
NCT02354365
Minimal Occlusive Pressure With Cuffed ETTs: The Effect of 3 Different Sizes of cETT on Intracuff Pressure in Children
NCT04061629
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Patients aged between 1 month and 18 years requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours participated in a cross-over study at two tertiary pediatric intensive care units. Each patient underwent two consecutive 24-hour monitoring periods: one with automatic cuff pressure monitoring and another with manual monitoring. Data collected included the frequency and total duration of low (\<15 cmH₂O) and high (\>25 cmH₂O) pressure episodes, number of manual corrections required, and total nursing intervention time.
This study aims to determine whether automatic monitoring provides better control of cuff pressure, reduces the frequency of cuff-related complications, and decreases nursing workload compared to manual monitoring.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
CROSSOVER
PREVENTION
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Manual Cuff Pressure Monitoring
In this arm, cuff pressure was manually measured and adjusted every 2 hours by nurses using a manometer, to maintain a target pressure between 15 and 25 cmH₂O over a 24-hour period.
Automatic Cuff Pressure Control
he IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland) continuously monitored and automatically adjusted cuff pressure to keep it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Manual intervention was only required upon system alert.
Automatic Cuff Pressure Monitoring
In this phase, endotracheal tube cuff pressure was continuously monitored using the IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland), which automatically adjusted the pressure to maintain it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Nurses intervened only if the system alerted due to a deviation.
Automatic Cuff Pressure Control
he IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland) continuously monitored and automatically adjusted cuff pressure to keep it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Manual intervention was only required upon system alert.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Automatic Cuff Pressure Control
he IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland) continuously monitored and automatically adjusted cuff pressure to keep it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Manual intervention was only required upon system alert.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
1 Month
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hamilton Medical AG
INDUSTRY
Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Hasan ağın
Prof.Dr
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Hasan Agin, Prof.Dr.
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Aydin Obstetric and pediatrics Hospital
Aydin, , Turkey (Türkiye)
Cam Sakura Research and Training Hospital
Istanbul, , Turkey (Türkiye)
Acibadem University, Acibadem Altunizade Hospital
Istanbul, , Turkey (Türkiye)
The Health Sciences University Izmir Behçet Uz Child Health and Diseases Research and Training Hospital
Izmir, , Turkey (Türkiye)
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Topjian AA, Raymond TT, Atkins D, Chan M, Duff JP, Joyner BL Jr, Lasa JJ, Lavonas EJ, Levy A, Mahgoub M, Meckler GD, Roberts KE, Sutton RM, Schexnayder SM; Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Collaborators. Part 4: Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20;142(16_suppl_2):S469-S523. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000901. Epub 2020 Oct 21. No abstract available.
Vottier G, Matrot B, Jones P, Dauger S. A cross-over study of continuous tracheal cuff pressure monitoring in critically-ill children. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Jan;42(1):132-3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4103-8. Epub 2015 Oct 29. No abstract available.
Dauvergne JE, Geffray AL, Asehnoune K, Rozec B, Lakhal K. Automatic regulation of the endotracheal tube cuff pressure with a portable elastomeric device. A randomised controlled study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Jun;39(3):435-441. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 May 4.
Zhu G, Wang X, Cao X, Yang C, Wang B, Ang Y, Duan M. The effect of different endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring systems on postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing tracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Mar 25;24(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02499-5.
Chenelle CT, Oto J, Sulemanji D, Fisher DF, Kacmarek RM. Evaluation of an automated endotracheal tube cuff controller during simulated mechanical ventilation. Respir Care. 2015 Feb;60(2):183-90. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03387. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
Alzahrani AR, Al Abbasi S, Abahoussin OK, Al Shehri TO, Al-Dorzi HM, Tamim HM, Sadat M, Arabi YM. Prevalence and predictors of out-of-range cuff pressure of endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes: a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct 15;15:147. doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0132-7.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2024/896
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.