You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 146 No. 9, September 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Removing meconium from infant tracheae. What works best?

R. C. Bent, T. E. Wiswell and A. Chang
Uniformed Services University of the Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

OBJECTIVE--At least nine mechanical devices are available for suctioning the tracheae of meconium-stained newborns. To our knowledge, the efficacy of these devices, as well as various suction pressures and patterns, has not been previously compared. We performed this investigation to assess these variables. DESIGN--Fourteen suction techniques (combinations of device, suction pressure, and suction intermittency) were evaluated sequentially in the trachea of each of 14 in vitro newborn piglets (1 to 4 days old); the order was randomized using a Latin square design. We chose three devices to compare: a meconium aspirator (Neotech Products Inc, Chatsworth, Calif), a hand pump (Res-Q-Vac, Repromed Systems Inc, New York, NY), and a 10F suction catheter (Superior Healthcare Group Inc, Cumberland, RI). Both the meconium aspirator and the hand pump were used with a 3.0-mm endotracheal tube. INTERVENTION--We instilled 0.8 mL of a homogeneous mixture of human meconium and saline (44 g of meconium per 100 mL of saline) in the trachea before applying each suction technique. The meconium aspirator and the suction catheter were each evaluated at three different vacuum pressures, -40, -80, and -150 mm Hg, using both continuous and interrupted suction. The hand pump was evaluated with one and two activations (one activation generates -100 cm H2O, according to the manufacturer). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS--The percentage of instilled meconium recovered was consistently greatest (P less than .001) with the meconium aspirator (mean, 88.9% at -150 mm Hg, 84.9% at -80 mm Hg, and 73.5% at -40 mm Hg), intermediate with the catheter (mean, 81.0% at -150 mm Hg, 73.2% at -80 mm Hg, and 67.5% at -40 mm Hg), and least for the hand pump (mean, 67.9% with one activation and 72.6% with two activations). Recovery was better with continuous suction (P = .02) and increasing pressure (P less than .001). CONCLUSIONS--Among the techniques compared, the meconium aspirator at -150 mm Hg, using continuous suction, performed best in this model. It is unknown, however, to what extent the tracheal mucosa may be affected by this degree of negative pressure.





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1992 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.