Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Canadian Respiratory Journal
Volume 16 (2009), Issue 3, Pages e6-e17
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/872921
Review

Updating the Evidence Base for Suctioning Adult Patients: A Systematic Review

Tom J Overend,1 Cathy M Anderson,2 Dina Brooks,3 Lisa Cicutto,4 Michael Keim,5 Debra McAuslan,6 and Mika Nonoyama7

1School of Physical Therapy, University of Western Ontario, Canada
2London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada
3Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
4Department of Medicine, National Jewish Center for Medicine and Research, Denver, Colorado, USA
5Respiratory Therapy Services, St Joseph’s Health Care, London, Canada
6London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada
7Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Copyright © 2009 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To update a previous clinical practice guideline on suctioning in adult patients, published in the Canadian Respiratory Journal in 2001.

METHODS: A primary search of the MEDLINE (from 1998), CINAHL, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (all from 1996) databases up to November 2007, was conducted. These dates reflect the search limits reached in the previous clinical practice guideline. A secondary search of the reference lists of retrieved articles was also performed. Two reviewers independently appraised each study before meeting to reach consensus. Study quality was evaluated using the Jadad and PEDro scales. When sufficient data were available, a meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Data are reported as ORs, weighted mean differences and 95% CIs. When no comparisons were possible, qualitative analyses of the data were completed.

RESULTS: Eighty-one studies were critically appraised from a pool of 123. A total of 28 randomized controlled trials or randomized crossover studies were accepted for inclusion. Meta-analysis was possible for open versus closed suctioning only. Recommendations from 2001 with respect to hyperoxygenation, hyperinflation, use of a ventilator circuit adaptor and subglottic suctioning were confirmed. New evidence was identified with respect to indications for suctioning, open suction versus closed suction systems, use of medications and infection control.

CONCLUSIONS: While new evidence continues to be varied in strength, and is still lacking in some areas of suctioning practice, the evidence base has improved since 2001. Members of the health care team should incorporate this evidence into their practice.