To the Editor We read with great interest the article by Esianor and colleagues on endotracheal tube (ETT) size in critically ill patients. Laryngotracheal injuries after invasive mechanical ventilation range from reversible pressure injuries to permanent damage, scarring, fistulas, and transmural lesions. Endotracheal tubes larger than 7.0 mm pose greater risk of laryngeal injury, and ETTs larger than 7.5 mm are often selected for critically ill patients in efforts to improve airflow resistance, avoid blockage, and facilitate procedural int erventions. Little is known as to whether larger ETTs improve recovery. Esianor and colleagues found no difference in 30-day all-cause in-hospital survival between patients with small, appropriate, or large-for-height endotracheal tubes. If larger tubes do not improve survival, is survivorship a better focus? Even with optimally sized tubes, translaryngeal intubation carries risks for impaired speech, swallowing, and airway protection. The investigation presented new questions around selection of ETT size, and has several implications for current practice and future investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment