2022
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16314
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the effect of endotracheal aspiration at different head heights on oxygenation of the brain by non‐invasive method in intensive care patients

Abstract: Objectives To determine the effect of endotracheal aspiration at different head heights on oxygenation brain by non‐invasive method in neurosurgery intensive care patients. Background Head elevation of mechanical ventilator‐dependent neurosurgery patients and the possible risks of endotracheal aspiration are closely related to the clinical conditions of the patients. Design A prospective quasi‐experimental study with repetitive measurements in a single group. Methods In the study, neurosurgery intensive care p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, Abbasinia et al, reported that respiratory rates of patients increased significantly during deep and superficial endotracheal suctioning [6]. However, in parallel with the results of this study, they could not find a statistically significant difference between Hyperventilation and hypoxia can cause significant complications in neurosurgical patients [22]. Therefore, oxygenation should be at an optimal level.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…On the other hand, Abbasinia et al, reported that respiratory rates of patients increased significantly during deep and superficial endotracheal suctioning [6]. However, in parallel with the results of this study, they could not find a statistically significant difference between Hyperventilation and hypoxia can cause significant complications in neurosurgical patients [22]. Therefore, oxygenation should be at an optimal level.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%