This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • 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 JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Richard R. Jackson, MD; Stilman D. Davis, Jr., MD
Salem Hospital Salem, Mass

JAMA. 1970;212(7):1215-1216.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Recently published data in dogs¹ demonstrated the superiority of low-pressure endotracheal tube cuffs over high-pressure conventional endotracheal cuffs. Low-pressure cuffs decrease the incidence of superficial mucosal ulceration, and eliminate necrosis of deep-lying tracheal structures, seen occasionally after prolonged intubation with high-pressure cuffs.

A technical problem exists, however, in the clinical application of these cuffs: proper inflation is difficult to achieve. Too much air introduced into the cuff can defeat the purpose of the low-pressure design, ie, to have a cuff which seals with a minimal pressure on the tracheal mucosa. Too much air also can herniate elastic cuffs over the end of the tube causing airway obstruction. Cuff rupture can also occur. Because the cuffs are so compliant, it is difficult to determine an end point for inflation unless relatively complex pressure gauges, sensitive in the lowpressure range (10 to 30 cm H₂O) are . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?