Effectiveness of Continuous Endotracheal Cuff Pressure Control for the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Respiratory Infections: An Open-Label Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An endotracheal tube cuff pressure between 20 and 30 cmH2O is recommended to prevent ventilator-associated respiratory infection (VARI). We aimed to evaluate whether continuous cuff pressure control (CPC) was associated with reduced VARI incidence compared with intermittent CPC.We conducted a multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial in intensive care unit (ICU) patients within 24 hours of intubation in Vietnam. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either continuous CPC using an automated electronic device or intermittent CPC using a manually hand-held manometer. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of VARI, evaluated by an independent reviewer blinded to the CPC allocation.We randomized 600 patients; 597 received the intervention or control and were included in the intention to treat analysis. Compared with intermittent CPC, continuous CPC did not reduce the proportion of patients with at least one episode of VARI (74/296 [25%] vs 69/301 [23%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] .77-1.67]. There were no significant differences between continuous and intermittent CPC concerning the proportion of microbiologically confirmed VARI (OR 1.40; 95% CI .94-2.10), the proportion of intubated days without antimicrobials (relative proportion [RP] 0.99; 95% CI .87-1.12), rate of ICU discharge (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR] 0.95; 95% CI .78-1.16), cost of ICU stay (difference in transformed mean [DTM] 0.02; 95% CI -.05 to .08], cost of ICU antimicrobials (DTM 0.02; 95% CI -.25 to .28), cost of hospital stay (DTM 0.02; 95% CI -.04 to .08), and ICU mortality risk (OR 0.96; 95% CI .67-1.38).Maintaining CPC through an automated electronic device did not reduce VARI incidence.NCT02966392.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".