A pilot randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of cricoid pressure on risk of aspiration

J. Kyle Bohman, Rahul Kashyap, Augustine Lee, Zhaoping He, Sam Soundar, Laura L. Bolling, Daryl J Kor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Patients at risk for microaspiration during elective intubation often receive cricoid pressure in the hopes of mitigating such risk. However, there is scarce evidence to either support or reject this practice. The objective of this investigation was to assess the effect of cricoid pressure on microaspiration and to inform the potential feasibility of conducting a larger, more definitive clinical trial. Methods: This was a pilot randomized clinical trial set in the operating rooms of a tertiary referral hospital between August and October of 2014. Patients with risk factors for microaspiration (obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or diabetes) were enrolled. The patients were randomized to either cricoid pressure or no cricoid pressure during induction of anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Immediately after intubation, a sample of lower airway secretions was collected and analyzed for pepsin A. Main Results: A total of 95 patients were evaluated, randomized and completed the study protocol. 46 were randomized to cricoid pressure and 49 to no cricoid pressure. Seven patients crossed-over treatment arms. A total of 18 (19.6%) patients met the pre-defined criteria for microaspiration. In both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of microaspiration [OR (95% CI)]=1.39 (0.49-3.92) and 1.30 (0.44-3.86), respectively. Conclusions: Utilizing pepsin A as a biomarker of aspiration, this pilot clinical trial did not find evidence for a reduced rate of aspiration or adverse clinical events with the administration of cricoid pressure during elective endotracheal intubation of patients with risk factors for microaspiration.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical Respiratory Journal
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2016

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Pressure
Intratracheal Intubation
Pepsin A
Intubation
Hope
Clinical Trials
Operating Rooms
Gastroesophageal Reflux
Aspirations (Psychology)
Tertiary Care Centers
Anesthesia
Obesity
Biomarkers

Keywords

  • Aspiration
  • Cricoid pressure
  • Intubation
  • Microaspiration
  • Pepsin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

A pilot randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of cricoid pressure on risk of aspiration. / Bohman, J. Kyle; Kashyap, Rahul; Lee, Augustine; He, Zhaoping; Soundar, Sam; Bolling, Laura L.; Kor, Daryl J.

In: Clinical Respiratory Journal, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bohman, J. Kyle ; Kashyap, Rahul ; Lee, Augustine ; He, Zhaoping ; Soundar, Sam ; Bolling, Laura L. ; Kor, Daryl J. / A pilot randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of cricoid pressure on risk of aspiration. In: Clinical Respiratory Journal. 2016.
@article{897f2ec028f841aa9de71322b0f7b8b5,
title = "A pilot randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of cricoid pressure on risk of aspiration",
abstract = "Introduction: Patients at risk for microaspiration during elective intubation often receive cricoid pressure in the hopes of mitigating such risk. However, there is scarce evidence to either support or reject this practice. The objective of this investigation was to assess the effect of cricoid pressure on microaspiration and to inform the potential feasibility of conducting a larger, more definitive clinical trial. Methods: This was a pilot randomized clinical trial set in the operating rooms of a tertiary referral hospital between August and October of 2014. Patients with risk factors for microaspiration (obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or diabetes) were enrolled. The patients were randomized to either cricoid pressure or no cricoid pressure during induction of anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Immediately after intubation, a sample of lower airway secretions was collected and analyzed for pepsin A. Main Results: A total of 95 patients were evaluated, randomized and completed the study protocol. 46 were randomized to cricoid pressure and 49 to no cricoid pressure. Seven patients crossed-over treatment arms. A total of 18 (19.6{\%}) patients met the pre-defined criteria for microaspiration. In both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of microaspiration [OR (95{\%} CI)]=1.39 (0.49-3.92) and 1.30 (0.44-3.86), respectively. Conclusions: Utilizing pepsin A as a biomarker of aspiration, this pilot clinical trial did not find evidence for a reduced rate of aspiration or adverse clinical events with the administration of cricoid pressure during elective endotracheal intubation of patients with risk factors for microaspiration.",
keywords = "Aspiration, Cricoid pressure, Intubation, Microaspiration, Pepsin",
author = "Bohman, {J. Kyle} and Rahul Kashyap and Augustine Lee and Zhaoping He and Sam Soundar and Bolling, {Laura L.} and Kor, {Daryl J}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1111/crj.12508",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Clinical Respiratory Journal",
issn = "1752-6981",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A pilot randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of cricoid pressure on risk of aspiration

AU - Bohman, J. Kyle

AU - Kashyap, Rahul

AU - Lee, Augustine

AU - He, Zhaoping

AU - Soundar, Sam

AU - Bolling, Laura L.

AU - Kor, Daryl J

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Introduction: Patients at risk for microaspiration during elective intubation often receive cricoid pressure in the hopes of mitigating such risk. However, there is scarce evidence to either support or reject this practice. The objective of this investigation was to assess the effect of cricoid pressure on microaspiration and to inform the potential feasibility of conducting a larger, more definitive clinical trial. Methods: This was a pilot randomized clinical trial set in the operating rooms of a tertiary referral hospital between August and October of 2014. Patients with risk factors for microaspiration (obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or diabetes) were enrolled. The patients were randomized to either cricoid pressure or no cricoid pressure during induction of anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Immediately after intubation, a sample of lower airway secretions was collected and analyzed for pepsin A. Main Results: A total of 95 patients were evaluated, randomized and completed the study protocol. 46 were randomized to cricoid pressure and 49 to no cricoid pressure. Seven patients crossed-over treatment arms. A total of 18 (19.6%) patients met the pre-defined criteria for microaspiration. In both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of microaspiration [OR (95% CI)]=1.39 (0.49-3.92) and 1.30 (0.44-3.86), respectively. Conclusions: Utilizing pepsin A as a biomarker of aspiration, this pilot clinical trial did not find evidence for a reduced rate of aspiration or adverse clinical events with the administration of cricoid pressure during elective endotracheal intubation of patients with risk factors for microaspiration.

AB - Introduction: Patients at risk for microaspiration during elective intubation often receive cricoid pressure in the hopes of mitigating such risk. However, there is scarce evidence to either support or reject this practice. The objective of this investigation was to assess the effect of cricoid pressure on microaspiration and to inform the potential feasibility of conducting a larger, more definitive clinical trial. Methods: This was a pilot randomized clinical trial set in the operating rooms of a tertiary referral hospital between August and October of 2014. Patients with risk factors for microaspiration (obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or diabetes) were enrolled. The patients were randomized to either cricoid pressure or no cricoid pressure during induction of anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Immediately after intubation, a sample of lower airway secretions was collected and analyzed for pepsin A. Main Results: A total of 95 patients were evaluated, randomized and completed the study protocol. 46 were randomized to cricoid pressure and 49 to no cricoid pressure. Seven patients crossed-over treatment arms. A total of 18 (19.6%) patients met the pre-defined criteria for microaspiration. In both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of microaspiration [OR (95% CI)]=1.39 (0.49-3.92) and 1.30 (0.44-3.86), respectively. Conclusions: Utilizing pepsin A as a biomarker of aspiration, this pilot clinical trial did not find evidence for a reduced rate of aspiration or adverse clinical events with the administration of cricoid pressure during elective endotracheal intubation of patients with risk factors for microaspiration.

KW - Aspiration

KW - Cricoid pressure

KW - Intubation

KW - Microaspiration

KW - Pepsin

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978414621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978414621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/crj.12508

DO - 10.1111/crj.12508

M3 - Article

C2 - 27273863

AN - SCOPUS:84978414621

JO - Clinical Respiratory Journal

JF - Clinical Respiratory Journal

SN - 1752-6981

ER -