Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020; 8(1): e8 OR I G I N A L RE S E A RC H The Effects of Open and Closed Suction Methods on Occur- rence of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia; a Comparative Study Seyed Hossein Ardehali1, Alireza Fatemi2∗, Seyedeh Fariba Rezaei2, Mohammad Mehdi Forouzanfar3, Zahra Zolghadr4 1. Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Men’s Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Emergency department, Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Received: October 2019; Accepted: December 2019; Published online: 11 January 2020 Abstract: Introduction: Endotracheal suctioning is a method commonly used to clean airway secretions in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV ). This study aimed to compare the effects of open and closed suction methods on the occurrence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: This comparative study was carried out on adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients in need of MV for more than 48 hours, from October 2018 to January 2019. Patients were randomly allocated to either closed tracheal suction system (CTSS) group or open tracheal suction system (OTSS) group. Patients were monitored for developing VAP within 72 hours of intubation and the findings were compared between groups. Results: 120 cases with the mean age of 57.91±19.9 years were randomly divided into two groups (56.7% male). The two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.492) and sex (p = 0.713) distribution. 22 (18.3%) cases developed VAP (12 (20%) in OSST group and 10 (16.7%) in CSST; p = 0.637). The most prevalent bacterial causes of VAP were Acinetobacter_Baumannii (72.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (18.2%), and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (9.1%), respectively. There was not any significant difference between groups regarding the mean duration of remaining under MV (p = 0.623), mean duration of hospitalization (p = 0.219), frequency of VAP (p = 0.637), and mortality (p = 0.99). Conclusion: It seems that type of endotracheal suction system (OSST vs. CSST) had no effect on occurrence of VAP and other outcomes such as duration of need for MV and ICU stay as well as mortality. Keywords: Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; critical care; intensive care units; suction Cite this article as: Ardehali S H, Fatemi A, Rezaei S F, Forouzanfar M M, Zolghadr Z. The Effects of Open and Closed Suction Methods on Occurrence of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia; a Comparative Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2020; 8(1): e8. 1. Introduction Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections in intensive care units (ICUs), and is associated with a high rate of morbidity and high cost of care (1). Therefore, any intervention to reduce VAP will result in reducing costs, morbidity and mortality (2). Endotracheal tube (ETT) suctioning is an essential procedure ∗Corresponding Author: Alireza Fatemi; Men’s Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Shahrdary Avenue, Tajr- ish Square, Tehran, Iran. Phone: 00989128949858, Fax: 00982122719014, Email: alireza.fatemi.md@gmail.com in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV ) with in- tubation to keeping the airways open through removal of ac- cumulated pulmonary secretions (3). In addition, perform- ing suction accurately is important to prevent VAP (4). Two different methods are used for ETT suctioning, open tracheal suction system (OTSS), and closed tracheal suction system (CTSS). OTSS method requires participation of two nurses and may lead to temporary disruption of ventilation and oxy- gen supply due to disconnection of the patient from venti- lation device during suctioning and the most important risk factor in this method is hypoxia (5, 6). However, in CTSS method, ETT suctioning can be administrated through con- nections in closed suction set and while the ventilation is be- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem S H. Ardehali et al. 2 ing performed without disconnecting the patient from the ventilator (7). The effect of open and closed suction methods on preventing VAP is still an open field to be explored, be- cause the results of previous studies are contradictory (8-12). Some studies showed that there was no difference between closed and open endotracheal suction systems in terms of VAP development (9, 11, 12). On the other hand, Alipour et al. (10) and Fakhar et al. (13) showed that closed suction is as- sociated with a lower risk of VAP compared to open suction. Therefore, we conducted this comparative study to compare the effects of open and closed suction methods on VAP in me- chanically ventilated patients. 2. Methods 2.1. Study design and setting This comparative study was conducted prospectively on ICU-admitted patients in Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Tehran, Iran, from October 2018 to January 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of CTSS and OTSS and the outcomes (VAP occurrence, mortality, ICU stay, and duration of need to MV ) of the two groups were compared. This study was performed after receiving approval from the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of medical sciences (Ethics code: IR.SBMU.MSP.REC.1398.69). A written consent was obtained from patients or legal guardians of patients. 2.2. Participants Adult patients who underwent MV for more than 48 hours were included in the study. Patients unwilling to participate or those with pneumonia or any other underlying respira- tory diseases that increase the risk of pneumonia at the time of admission and patients who had remained intubated for more than 48 hours before admission were excluded from the study. 2.3. Data gathering Demographic characteristics of patients (age and sex), dura- tion of MV and the length of hospital stay as well as devel- oping VAP within 72 hours of intubation were examined and recorded by an intensivist for all cases. 2.4. Procedure Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly di- vided into two groups of CTSS and OTSS based on endotra- cheal suction methods using sequential randomization. In both groups, throat samples from endotracheal tubes and ventilator tubing were taken to determine the rate of colo- nization. Conventional bacteriological methods were used for identification of isolated micro-organisms. Antimicro- bial susceptibility test was performed using Disk Diffusion method according to CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Stan- dards Institute) guidelines (14). Suction methods were ad- ministrated based on the protocol of American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) (15). Endotracheal suction was performed by experienced ICU nurses. In the OTSS group, suctioning was performed using single use catheters with full barrier measures (hand washing and use of gloves). Patients were pre-oxygenated for 2 minutes before suctioning. In the CTSS group, the system used for respiratory system suction- ing was (Vital-Cath TM 72 Closed Suction Systems) and suc- tion catheter was changed every 48 hours. Similar to the other group, patients were pre-oxygenated, and suctioning was performed without disconnection from the ventilator. The following VAP prophylaxis strategies were used in all pa- tients: head elevation (30-40◦), heat and moisture exchanger (HME) for humidification, protocolized sedation and enteral nutrition, performing suction only when necessary, avoid- ing routine change of the respiratory circuit unless neces- sary, mouth washing with chlorhexidine in each shift, pan- toprazole for prophylaxis of stress ulcer, verification of gas- tric residual volume in each shift, avoidance of unnecessary extubation or intubation, maintenance of cuff pressure be- tween 20-30 mmHg and continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions. All interventions were done by one medical doc- tor and two nurses who provided care for both groups. Di- agnosis of VAP was performed based on clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) (16). Patients were monitored for 72 hours from suctioning and examined by an infectious dis- ease specialist. Bacterial pneumonia index calculated based on persistent infiltration in the chest X-ray, body tempera- ture, white blood cell count, airway discharges, ratio of arte- rial blood oxygen to inhaled oxygen, and culture and smear of lung discharges were recorded. Patients were considered to have pneumonia if they received a score higher than 6 (ap- pendix 1) (17). 2.5. Statistical Analysis Qualitative variables were reported as percentage and quan- titative variables as mean± standard deviation. We used Stu- dent t test and chi-square test for detection of differences be- tween the two groups. Fisher’s exact test was used for quali- tative analysis when necessary. For analyzing data, SPSS ver- sion 21 (SPSS Inc., IMB Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used. P value equal to or less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. 3. Results 120 cases with the mean age of 57.91±19.9 (17 – 94) years were randomly divided into two groups of OSST or CSST (56.7% male) with equal participants. The two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.492) and sex (p = 0.713) distri- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 3 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020; 8(1): e8 Table 1: Comparing the outcomes between open tracheal suction system (OTSS) and closed tracheal suction system (CTSS) groups Outcomes Type of suction P OTSS (n=60) CTSS (n=60) Ventilator associated pneumonia Yes 12 (20.0) 10 (16.7) 0.637 No 48 (80.0) 50 (83.3) Duration of ventilation Mean ± SD 13.47±10.83 12.62±7.82 0.623 Range (days) 5-65 5-47 Hospitalization days Mean ± SD 21.83±12.72 19.20±10.50 0.219 Range (days) 8-73 8-55 Microorganism Acinetobacter_Baumannii 9 (56.2) 7 (43.8) 0.96 Klebsiella pneumoniae 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0) MRSA 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) No 48 (49.0) 50 (51.0) Death Yes 39 (65.0) 39 (65.0) 0.99 No 21 (35.0) 21 (35.0) Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or frequency (%). MRSA: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Appendix 1: Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score used for diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia Criterion Score Temperature, ◦C ≥36.5 and ≤38.4 0 38.5 and ≤38.9 1 ≥39 and ≤ 36 2 Leukocyte count (/mm3 ) ≥4,000 and ≤11,000 0 <4,000 or >11,000 1 +band forms ≥500 2 Oxygenation, PaO2 /FiO2 >240 or ARDS 0 ≤240 and no evidence of ARDS 2 Pulmonary radiography No infiltrate 0 Diffused (or patchy) infiltrate 1 Localized infiltrate 2 Culture of tracheal aspirate* Pathogenic bacteria cultured ≤1+ or no growth 0 Pathogenic bacteria cultured >1+ 1 + same pathogenic bacteria seen on the Gram stain >1+ 2 *: Semi-quantitative: 0-1-2 or 3+. ARDS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome. bution. 22 (18.3%) cases developed VAP (12 (20%) in OSST group and 10 (16.7%) in CSST; p = 0.637). The most preva- lent bacterial causes of VAP were Acinetobacter_Baumannii (72.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (18.2%), and Methicillin- Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (9.1%), respectively. No sta- tistically significant difference was detected between groups regarding the frequency of bacterial causes VAP (p = 0.99). Table 1 compares the outcomes of patients between groups. There was not any significant difference between groups re- garding the mean duration of undergoing MV (p = 0.623), mean duration of hospitalization (p = 0.219), frequency of VAP (p = 0.637), and mortality (p = 0.99). 4. Discussion The results revealed that the type of endotracheal suction system (OSST vs. CSST) had no effect on development of VAP and ICU outcome. In addition, our results did not show any significant difference between the two groups regarding length of ICU stay and duration of MV and mortality rate, which is similar to the results of Combes et al. (18), Topeli et al. (12), Ozcan et al. (19) and Hamishekar et al. (9). Differ- ent studies that assessed the effect of open and closed suc- tion on incidence of VAP showed controversial findings (9, 10, 12). Our finding is consistent with some previous stud- ies that showed no statistically significant difference between OSST and CSST endotracheal suctioning systems in terms of VAP development (20, 21). In a systematic review by Subirana et al., 16 clinical trials were assessed; their results showed that using open or closed suction methods had no effect on VAP (22). A prospective randomized study, which was car- ried out on 100 patients in surgical ICU by Hamishekar et al. to evaluate the effect of CTSS versus OTSS did not show any statistically significant effect on VAP incidence in mul- tivariate analysis (9). However, in contrast to our findings, some studies showed that closed suction method has supe- riority over open method in reducing the incidence of VAP (10, 13). In a prospective clinical trial performed by David et This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem S H. Ardehali et al. 4 al. clinical results of OSST and CSST were assessed in 200 pa- tients under MV in India; they found that using closed suc- tion reduced the incidence of VAP. However, mortality rate and hospital stay in ICU were the same in both groups (23). The controversial/contradicting results in different studies can have many reasons such as small sample size, inappro- priate inclusion or exclusion criteria such as including pa- tients with underlying respiratory diseases, short duration of study period, not teaching the principles of using closed suc- tion to nurses, and not using the VAP prophylaxis strategies in open suction method. In the present study, we tried to solve the above-mentioned limitations by using appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, including appropriate num- ber of patients in both groups, properly training nurses for using closed suction, and using VAP prophylaxis strategies as a health principle. Considering that both endotracheal suc- tion systems have advantages and disadvantages, it seems that the incidence of VAP can be reduced by using aseptic precautions based on signs and symptoms, as well as the cor- rect use of guidelines in both suction systems. The distribu- tion of micro-organisms causing VAP was different in various studies, which could be due to differences in patient demo- graphics, methods of diagnosis, duration of hospitalization, ICU stays, and antibiotic policy (24, 25). In the present study, Acinetobacter_Baumannii was the most common isolated pathogen (72.7%) in patients with VAP followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (18.2%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococ- cus aureus (MRSA) (9.1%). Consistent with the present inves- tigation, a study by Dey et al. reported Acinetobacter species (48.94%) as the most common isolate from early-onset and late-onset VAP (26). Previous studies have shown that Acine- tobacter species ranked fifth among the causative organisms of VAP (27-29). Bozorgmehr et al. reported that acinetobacter baumannii and klebsiella pneumoniae were the most com- mon germs growing in sputum cultures and most of them were pan drug resistance (PDR) or extensive drug resistance (XDR) (30). Our study limitation is that type of VAP (early or delayed) was not studied, which is suggested to be further evaluated in future studies. In addition, data regarding un- derlying diseases and cause of intubation were not recorded; however, they may play a role in increasing mortality due to ventilation. In conclusion, according to the findings of this study, the use of CSST has no superiority over OSST in reduc- ing VAP incidence of and it has no effect on ICU outcome. The incidence of VAP was remarkable in both groups, which led to an increase in hospitalization and mechanical ventila- tion in these patients. In addition, Acinetobacter_Baumannii was found to be the most common isolated pathogen fol- lowed by K. pneumoniae and MRSA. 5. Conclusion It seems that type of endotracheal suctioning system (OSST vs. CSST) had no effect on occurrence of VAP and other out- comes such as duration of MV and ICU stay as well as mor- tality. 6. Declarations 6.1. Acknowledgements Hereby, we thank the ICU staff members of Shohadaye Tajr- ish Hospital for their hearty cooperation and helping us per- form this study. 6.2. Author contribution All the authors met the 4 criteria recommended by the in- ternational committee of medical journal editors for gaining authorship. Authors ORCIDs Seyed Hossein Ardehali: 0000-0001-6656-3875 Alireza Fatemi: 0000-0003-0671-7611 Mohammad Mehdi Forouzanfar: 0000-0003-0626-8545 Zahra Zolghadr: 0000-0001-6562-0348 6.3. Funding/Support None. 6.4. Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References 1. Charles MP, Kali A, Easow JM, Joseph NM, Ravishankar M, Srinivasan S, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. The Australasian medical journal. 2014;7(8):334-44. 2. Keyt H, Faverio P, Restrepo MI. Prevention of ventilator- associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit: a re- view of the clinically relevant recent advancements. The Indian journal of medical research. 2014;139(6):814-21. 3. Liu XW, Jin Y, Ma T, Qu B, Liu Z. Differential Effects of En- dotracheal Suctioning on Gas Exchanges in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure under Pressure-Controlled and Volume-Controlled Ventilation. BioMed research inter- national. 2015;2015:941081. 4. Vijai MN, Ravi PR, Setlur R, Vardhan H. Efficacy of intermittent sub-glottic suctioning in prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia- A preliminary study of 100 patients. Indian journal of anaesthesia. 2016;60(5):319-24. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 5 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020; 8(1): e8 5. Sarkar M, Niranjan N, Banyal PK. Mechanisms of hypox- emia. Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society. 2017;34(1):47-60. 6. Lasocki S, Lu Q, Sartorius A, Fouillat D, Remerand F, Rouby JJ. Open and closed-circuit endotracheal suction- ing in acute lung injury: efficiency and effects on gas ex- change. Anesthesiology. 2006;104(1):39-47. 7. Siempos, II, Vardakas KZ, Falagas ME. Closed tra- cheal suction systems for prevention of ventilator- associated pneumonia. British journal of anaesthesia. 2008;100(3):299-306. 8. Kuriyama A, Umakoshi N, Fujinaga J, Takada T. Impact of closed versus open tracheal suctioning systems for mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive care medicine. 2015;41(3):402- 11. 9. Hamishekar H, Shadvar K, Taghizadeh M, Golzari SE, Mojtahedzadeh M, Soleimanpour H, et al. Ventilator- associated pneumonia in patients admitted to intensive care units, using open or closed endotracheal suctioning. Anesthesiology and pain medicine. 2014;4(5):e21649. 10. Aliopur N, Toulabi T, Manouchehrian N, Anbari KH, Rahimi Bashar F. A comparison the effect of open and close endotracheal suctioning on hemodynamic status of patient with head trauma hospitalized in intensive care unit. EVIDENCE BASED CARE. 2014;3(4):65-73. 11. Afshari A, Safari M, Oshvandi K, Soltanian AR. The effect of the open and closed system suctions on cardiopul- monary parameters: time and costs in patients under mechanical ventilation. Nursing and midwifery studies. 2014;3(2):e14097. 12. Topeli A, Harmanci A, Cetinkaya Y, Akdeniz S, Unal S. Comparison of the effect of closed versus open endotra- cheal suction systems on the development of ventilator- associated pneumonia. The Journal of hospital infection. 2004;58(1):14-9. 13. Ebrahimi fakhar H, Rezaei K, Kohestani H. Closed suction effect of pulmonary secretions of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia. Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. 2010;15(2):79-87. 14. Kassim A, Omuse G, Premji Z, Revathi G. Compari- son of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute and Euro- pean Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines for the interpretation of antibiotic susceptibil- ity at a University teaching hospital in Nairobi, Kenya: a cross-sectional study. Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials. 2016;15:21. 15. AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endotracheal suc- tioning of mechanically ventilated patients with artificial airways 2010. Respiratory care. 2010;55(6):758-64. 16. Schurink CAM, Nieuwenhoven CAV, Jacobs JA, Rozenberg-Arska M, Joore HCA, Buskens E, et al. Clinical pulmonary infection score for ventilator-associated pneumonia: accuracy and inter-observer variability. Intensive care medicine. 2004;30(2):217-24. 17. Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Mili N, Janssens JP, Lew PD, Suter PM. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and nonbron- choscopic âĂIJblindâĂİ bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;143:1121–9. 18. Combes P, Fauvage B, Oleyer C. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective ran- domised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive care medicine. 2000;26(7):878-82. 19. Ozcan MS, Bonett SW, Martin AD, Gabrielli A, Layon AJ, Banner MJ. Abnormally increased power of breathing as a complication of closed endotracheal suction catheter systems. Respiratory care. 2006;51(4):423-5. 20. Jongerden IP, Buiting AG, Leverstein-van Hall MA, Speel- berg B, Zeidler S, Kesecioglu J, et al. Effect of open and closed endotracheal suctioning on cross-transmission with Gram-negative bacteria: a prospective crossover study. Critical care medicine. 2011;39(6):1313-21. 21. Morrow BM, Mowzer R, Pitcher R, Argent AC. Investiga- tion into the effect of closed-system suctioning on the frequency of pediatric ventilator-associated pneumonia in a developing country. Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. 2012;13(1):e25-32. 22. Subirana M, Sola I, Benito S. Closed tracheal suction sys- tems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechani- cally ventilated adult patients. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007(4):Cd004581. 23. David D, Samuel P, David T, Keshava SN, Irodi A, Peter JV. An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suc- tioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechan- ically ventilated medical intensive care patients. Journal of critical care. 2011;26(5):482-8. 24. Liu Q, Yang J, Zhang J, Zhao F, Feng X, Wang X, et al. Description of Clinical Characteristics of VAP Patients in MIMIC Database. Frontiers in pharmacology. 2019;10:62. 25. Chin T, Kushner B. Antibiotic Utilization Patterns in Pa- tients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Cana- dian Context. 2016;2016:3702625. 26. Dey A, Bairy I. Incidence of multidrug-resistant organ- isms causing ventilator-associated pneumonia in a ter- tiary care hospital: a nine months’ prospective study. An- nals of thoracic medicine. 2007;2(2):52-7. 27. Giamarellou H, Antoniadou A, Kanellakopoulou K. Acinetobacter baumannii: a universal threat to public health? International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2008;32(2):106-19. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem S H. Ardehali et al. 6 28. Joly-Guillou ML. Clinical impact and pathogenicity of Acinetobacter. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2005;11(11):868- 73. 29. Peleg AY, Seifert H, Paterson DL. Acinetobacter bauman- nii: emergence of a successful pathogen. Clinical micro- biology reviews. 2008;21(3):538-82. 30. Bozorgmehr R, Bahrani V, Fatemi A. Ventilator- Associated Pneumonia and Its Responsible Germs; an Epidemiological Study. Emergency. 2017; 5(1): e26. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Declarations References