Comparative effectiveness of open vs. closed endotracheal suctioning techniques in mechanically ventilated adults

Authors

  • Khalid Fuad Alghamdi Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Wael Abdullah Almutairi Respiratory Therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department , National Gaurd Health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Abdullah Mohammed Alromieh Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Rami Hamad Alkhalid Respiratory Therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department , National Gaurd Health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Abdulrahman Mushabbab Alahmari Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Rakan Bajid Bin Busayyis Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Mohammed Abdullmalik Alodhayb Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Fahad Awad Alanazi Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Abdulaziz Ali Alghamdi Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyadh
  • Fuad Abdulaziz Alghamdi Respiratory therapist, Respiratory Therapy Department, National Gaurd health Affairs, Riyad

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.3295

Keywords:

Endotracheal suction, open suction system, closed suction system, mechanical ventilation, ventilator-associated pneumonia, ICU nursing, oxygen saturation, airway management, critical care, cost-effectiveness

Abstract

Background: Airway suctioning is used in managing mechanically ventilated patients. Two primary techniques are used: open tracheal suction systems (OTSS) and closed tracheal suction systems (CTSS). While both methods maintain airway patency and prevent complications (hypoxemia and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)), their comparative clinical effectiveness is under debate. In this systematic review we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of OTSS and CTSS in mechanically ventilated adult patients, focusing on physiological stability, VAP incidence, pain and agitation levels, suctioning duration, and cost-effectiveness.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they involved adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation and compared OTSS and CTSS. Outcomes assessed included oxygen saturation, hemodynamic changes, VAP incidence, suction duration, pain scores, and economic cost. We include randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and clinical trials. Data synthesis was performed qualitatively in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority show no significant differences in VAP incidence or mortality between OTSS and CTSS. CTSS was associated with better maintenance of oxygen saturation, shorter suctioning time, improved cardiorespiratory stability, and in some cases, reduced pain scores. There is a higher per-unit costs for CTSS, though long-term use without daily replacement rendered it more cost-effective in patients ventilated for over four days.

Conclusion: Both OTSS and CTSS are clinically effective in secretion management, CTSS offers advantages in maintaining physiological stability and reduce procedural disruptions. These benefits must be weighed against increased equipment costs and the potential for infection-related complications such as IVAC. The choice between CTSS and OTSS should be individualized based on patient condition, clinical context, and resource availability.

References

1] AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. (2022). Artificial airway suctioning. Respiratory Care. https://www.aarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cpg-artificial-airway-suctioning.pdf.

[2] Pagotto IM, Oliveira LR de C, Araújo FCLC, Carvalho NAA de, Chiavone P, (2008). Comparação entre os sistemas aberto e fechado de aspiração: revisão sistemática. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 20(4):331–8. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-507X2008000400003&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt

[3] Sanaie S, Rahnemayan S, Javan S, Shadvar K, Saghaleini SH, Mahmoodpoor A, (2022). Comparison of Closed vs Open Suction in Prevention of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Indian J Crit Care Med. 26(7):839–45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36864859

[4] Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, Mora ML, Sierra A, (2006). Tracheal suction by closed system without daily change versus open system. Intensive Care Med. 32(4):538–44. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00134-005-0057-6

[5] Jung JW, Choi EH, Kim JH, Seo HK, Choi JY, Choi JC, et al, (2008). Comparison of a Closed with an Open Endotracheal Suction: Costs and the Incidence of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 65(3):198. http://etrd.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.4046/trd.2008.65.3.198

[6] Mohamed H, Mahmoud M, Gouda T, Kandeel N, (2023). Comparison Between the Effect of Open and Closed Tracheal Suction Systems on Physiological Parameters of Critically Ill Patients. Mansoura Nurs J. 10(1):271–82. https://mnj.journals.ekb.eg/article_320391.html

[7] Mohamed Elhady M, Mohamed Ahmed Ayed M, Shoeib Ali F, Ibrahim Abbas Ghoneim N, (2024). Open versus Closed Suctioning in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Comparative Study on Suctioning Time, Gas Exchange, and Cardiorespiratory Effects. Egypt J Heal Care. 15(3):1592–602. https://ejhc.journals.ekb.eg/article_419375.html

[8] Dhal SS, Aggarwal R, Sagar H, Mohakud NK, Sapare A, Padhee S, et al, (2025). Open versus Closed Suctioning Among Mechanically Ventilated Pediatric Patients: A Randomised Control Trial. Indian J Pediatr. 92(6):612–7. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12098-024-05069-2

[9] Gahan AK, Jain S, Khurana S, Chawla D, (2022). Closed versus open endotracheal tube suction in mechanically ventilated neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 182(2):785–93. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00431-022-04726-y

[10] Dastdadeh R, Ebadi A, Vahedian-Azimi A, (2016). Comparison of the Effect of Open and Closed Endotracheal Suctioning Methods on Pain and Agitation in Medical ICU Patients: A Clinical Trial. Anesthesiol Pain Med. 6(5). https://brieflands.com/articles/aapm-17586.html

[11] David D, Samuel P, David T, Keshava SN, Irodi A, Peter JV, (2011). An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suctioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care patients. J Crit Care. 26(5):482–8. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0883944110002844

[12] Lorente L, Lecuona M, Martín MM, García C, Mora ML, Sierra A, (2005). Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a closed versus an open tracheal suction system. Crit Care Med. 33(1):115–9. http://journals.lww.com/00003246-200501000-00017

[13] Faradita Aryani D, Tanner J, (2018). Does open or closed endotracheal suction affect the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit? A systematic review. Enfermería Clínica. 325–31. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1130862118301797

[14] Liang Z, Liao Q, Xu J, Wang S, Liu Q, Liu Z, et al, (2025). Comparative analysis of open and closed tracheal suction systems on mechanical ventilation efficiency in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust Crit Care. 38(2):101106. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1036731424002431

[15] Kuriyama A, Umakoshi N, Fujinaga J, Takada T, (2015). Impact of closed versus open tracheal suctioning systems for mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 41(3):402–11. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00134-014-3565-4[16] Mohammadpour A, Amini S, Shakeri MT, Mirzaei S, (2015). Comparing the effect of open and closed endotracheal suctioning on pain and oxygenation in post CABG patients under mechanical ventilation. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 20(2):195–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25878695

[17] Pirr SM, Lange M, Hartmann C, Bohnhorst B, Peter C, (2013). Closed versus Open Endotracheal Suctioning in Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Neonates: A Randomized, Crossover Trial. Neonatology. 103(2):124–30. https://karger.com/article/doi/10.1159/000343472

[18] Khayer F, Ghafari S, Saghaei M, Yazdannik A, Atashi V, (2020). Effects of open and closed tracheal suctioning on pain in mechanically ventilated patients. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 25(5):426. https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_135_18

[19] Briassoulis G, Briassoulis P, Michaeloudi E, Fitrolaki DM, Spanaki AM, Briassouli E, (2009). The Effects of Endotracheal Suctioning on the Accuracy of Oxygen Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Production Measurements and Pulmonary Mechanics Calculated by a Compact Metabolic Monitor. Anesth Analg. 109(3):873–9. https://journals.lww.com/00000539-200909000-00029

[20] Solà I, Benito S(2018). Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004581.pub2

Downloads

Published

2025-07-09

How to Cite

Fuad Alghamdi, K., Abdullah Almutairi , W., Mohammed Alromieh, A., Hamad Alkhalid, R., Mushabbab Alahmari, A., Bajid Bin Busayyis , R., … Abdulaziz Alghamdi, F. (2025). Comparative effectiveness of open vs. closed endotracheal suctioning techniques in mechanically ventilated adults. International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.3295

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 3 (2025): IJCESEN

Section

Review Article

License

Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.