The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care™ closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: Prospective, randomized study
Abstract
Eighty-four intubated, mechanically ventilated patients were prospectively evaluated for incidences of colonization and nosocomial pneumonias dependent on whether they received endotracheal suctioning by an "open" suction method vs. "closed" suction (Trach Care Closed Suction System) method. Results show that closed suctioning is associated with a significant (67% vs. 39% p less than .02) increase in colonization compared with open suctioning. However, difference in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia was not significantly (26% vs. 29%) different between closed and open suctioning. Differences in severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System), age, sex, presence of NG tubes, use of H2 antagonists or antacids, use of antibiotics, and history of smoking were all nonsignificant. Survival analysis demonstrated that the probability of survival without developing nosocomial pneumonia was greater among closed-suctioning patients vs. open-suctioned patients (p less than .03). This study shows that suctioning performed via the Trach Care closed-suction system increases the incidence of colonization but not the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, and may actually decrease mortality when compared with open-suction systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
(2012) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_225126 · Cited by 406
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients
Foglia, E., Meier, M. D., & Elward, A. (2007) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00041-06 · Cited by 316
RISK FACTORS FOR NOSOCOMIAL PNEUMONIA
Fleming, C. A., Balaguera, H. U., & Craven, D. E. (2001) · Medical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/s0025-7125(05)70395-3 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- DEPPE, S. A., KELLY, J. W., THOI, L. L., CHUDY, J. H., LONGFIELD, R. N., DUCEY, J. P., TRUWIT, C. L., & ANTOPOL, M. R.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 1990-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1389-1393
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088775209
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care™ closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: Prospective, randomized study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199012000-00016
- The paper
- DEPPE, S. A., KELLY, J. W., THOI, L. L., CHUDY, J. H., LONGFIELD, R. N., DUCEY, J. P., TRUWIT, C. L., & ANTOPOL, M. R. (1990). Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care™ closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: Prospective, randomized study. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199012000-00016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.