Effectiveness of continuous endotracheal cuff pressure control for the prevention of ventilator associated respiratory infections: an open-label randomised, controlled trial

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

Maintaining CPC through an automated electronic device did not reduce VARI incidence.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02966392.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: a prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) might have higher sensitivity than its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), but its role in tuberculous meningitis diagnosis is uncertain. We aimed to compare Xpert Ultra with Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study, adults (≥16 years) with suspected tuberculous meningitis from a single centre in Vietnam were randomly assigned to cerebrospinal fluid testing by either Xpert Ultra or Xpert at baseline and, if treated for tuberculous meningitis, after 3-4 weeks of treatment. Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) was calculated for Xpert Ultra and Xpert and compared against clinical and mycobacterial culture reference standards. Analyses were done for all patients and by HIV status.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 16, 2017, and Feb 10, 2019, 205 patients were randomly assigned to Xpert Ultra (n=103) or Xpert (n=102). The sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis against a reference standard of definite, probable, and possible tuberculous meningitis were 47·2% (95% CI 34·4-60·3; 25 of 53 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 39·6% (27·6-53·1; 21 of 53) for Xpert (p=0·56); specificities were 100·0% (95% CI 92·0-100·0; 44 of 44) and 100·0% (92·6-100·0; 48 of 48), respectively. In HIV-negative patients, the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was 38·9% (24·8-55·1; 14 of 36) versus 22·9% (12·1-39·0; eight of 35) by Xpert (p=0·23). In HIV co-infected patients, the sensitivities were 64·3% (38·8-83·7; nine of 14) for Xpert Ultra and 76·9% (49·7-91·8; ten of 13) for Xpert (p=0·77). Negative predictive values were 61·1% (49·6-71·5) for Xpert Ultra and 60·0% (49·0-70·0) for Xpert. Against a reference standard of mycobacterial culture, sensitivities were 90·9% (72·2-97·5; 20 of 22 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 81·8% (61·5-92·7; 18 of 22) for Xpert (p=0·66); specificities were 93·9% (85·4-97·6; 62 of 66) and 96·9% (89·5-91·2; 63 of 65), respectively. Six (22%) of 27 patients had a positive test by Xpert Ultra after 4 weeks of treatment versus two (9%) of 22 patients by Xpert.

INTERPRETATION

Xpert Ultra was not statistically superior to Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults. A negative Xpert Ultra or Xpert test does not rule out tuberculous meningitis. New diagnostic strategies are urgently required.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.