Comparison of four endotracheal tube cleaning protocols in anesthetized dogs

Charlotte R. Marquis Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Search for other papers by Charlotte R. Marquis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVM&S (Hons), MRCVS
,
Tamara Gull Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Search for other papers by Tamara Gull in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD, DACVIM, DACVM, DACVPM
,
John Dodam Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Search for other papers by John Dodam in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS, PhD, DACVAA
,
Lori Thombs Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Search for other papers by Lori Thombs in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Alex Bukoski Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Search for other papers by Alex Bukoski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD, DACVAA

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 4 cleaning protocols applied to endotracheal tubes (ETTs) collected from anesthetized dogs.

SAMPLE

100 ETTs (25 per protocol).

PROCEDURES

A 10-question survey designed to determine ETT reuse and cleaning practices was distributed via email to a sample of veterinary anesthesiologists. Informed by survey results, 4 ETT cleaning protocols were selected for use in a prospective clinical study. Dogs were intubated with sterile polyvinyl chloride ETTs. At extubation, each ETT was cultured for bacterial growth, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 protocols [water scrub (P1), detergent scrub (P2), detergent scrub and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) soak (P3), or detergent scrub and bleach soak (P4)], and cultured again after drying. Bacterial genera were identified using mass spectrometry and 16s rRNA sequencing. Proportions of ETTs exhibiting no post-cleaning growth were compared between protocols using the Fisher exact test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Half of survey respondents that reused ETTs did not sterilize them before reuse, cleaning methods varied widely, and no reported methods were evidence-based. After use, the number of ETTs exhibiting no post-cleaning bacterial growth were 15/25 (60%), 14/25 (56%), 20/25 (80%), and 17/25 (68%) for protocols P1, P2, P3, and P4, respectively. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences between protocols.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In small animal patients, some veterinary anesthesiologists reuse ETTs without sterilization and cleaning protocols vary widely. No differences between the studied protocols were identified. Further research is necessary to identify a safe, efficacious ETT cleaning protocol for use in small animal practice.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 4 cleaning protocols applied to endotracheal tubes (ETTs) collected from anesthetized dogs.

SAMPLE

100 ETTs (25 per protocol).

PROCEDURES

A 10-question survey designed to determine ETT reuse and cleaning practices was distributed via email to a sample of veterinary anesthesiologists. Informed by survey results, 4 ETT cleaning protocols were selected for use in a prospective clinical study. Dogs were intubated with sterile polyvinyl chloride ETTs. At extubation, each ETT was cultured for bacterial growth, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 protocols [water scrub (P1), detergent scrub (P2), detergent scrub and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) soak (P3), or detergent scrub and bleach soak (P4)], and cultured again after drying. Bacterial genera were identified using mass spectrometry and 16s rRNA sequencing. Proportions of ETTs exhibiting no post-cleaning growth were compared between protocols using the Fisher exact test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Half of survey respondents that reused ETTs did not sterilize them before reuse, cleaning methods varied widely, and no reported methods were evidence-based. After use, the number of ETTs exhibiting no post-cleaning bacterial growth were 15/25 (60%), 14/25 (56%), 20/25 (80%), and 17/25 (68%) for protocols P1, P2, P3, and P4, respectively. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences between protocols.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In small animal patients, some veterinary anesthesiologists reuse ETTs without sterilization and cleaning protocols vary widely. No differences between the studied protocols were identified. Further research is necessary to identify a safe, efficacious ETT cleaning protocol for use in small animal practice.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Table S1 (PDF 93 KB)
    • Supplementary Table S2 (PDF 135 KB)
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 3863 355 0
Full Text Views 3339 2859 218
PDF Downloads 3554 2930 201
Advertisement