Open versus closed suctioning on lung volume and oxygenation in ARDS patients with PEEP 5–10 cmH₂O: A randomized controlled trial
- 1School of Clinical Medicine, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang, China
- 2Department of Critical Care Medicine, Third Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of open suctioning (OS) versus closed suctioning (CS) on lung volume and oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients receiving mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5–10 cmH2O. Methods: This single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 60 ARDS patients, who were randomly assigned to OS (n = 30) or CS (n = 30). All patients received lung-protective ventilation with volume-controlled mode. SpO2 was recorded before suctioning and at 1, 10, 20, and 30 minutes post-suctioning. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed at 30 minutes to calculate the oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2). Changes in end-expiratory lung impedance (ΔEELI) were monitored using electrical impedance tomography (EIT) for the whole lung and four regions of interest (ROI). Secondary outcomes included extubation and survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Results: The absolute values of global ΔEELI were significantly lower in the CS group than in the OS group at 1 minute (−0.54 ± 0.18 vs. −2.32 ± 1.34, P < .001) and 10 minutes (−0.31 ± 0.25 vs. −1.14 ± 0.80, P < .001) after suctioning, indicating that CS better preserved lung volume. However, lung volume recovered more rapidly in the OS group, returning to baseline by 20 minutes, whereas recovery in the CS group was not achieved until 30 minutes. Regional analysis showed that the protective effect of CS was primarily observed in non-dependent regions (ROI 1–3), with no significant difference in the gravity-dependent ROI 4 (P = .430). SpO2 was significantly lower in the OS group than in the CS group at 1 minute post-suctioning (98.07 ± 1.26% vs. 99.03 ± 0.93%, P = .007), and returned to baseline by 20 minutes in the OS group versus 10 minutes in the CS group. No significant difference in oxygenation index was observed at 30 minutes (P = .329). Secondary outcomes, including extubation and survival, did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P > .050). No adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: In ARDS patients receiving PEEP 5–10 cmH2O, CS reduces lung volume loss during suctioning and better preserves early oxygenation, but results in slower post-suctioning lung volume recovery compared with OS. These findings reveal a physiologically important trade-off between the two methods, though their clinical relevance warrants further investigation in larger, outcome-focused trials.
Related
- Effects of remimazolam versus propofol on cerebral oxygenation in elderly patients undergoing prone spine surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
- Practical efficiency of coupling targeted temperature management to brain temperature versus systemic temperature in febrile brain-injured patients. The Brain-TTM study: A randomized controlled pathophysiology trial
- Dose-dependent efficacy and renal safety of pemafibrate versus fenofibrate in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and hypertriglyceridemia: a multicenter randomized controlled, open label trial
- Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol on the novel oxygenation index and respiratory mechanics in gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial
- Challenges of Conducting a Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial During COVID-19 Restrictions: Rivaroxaban Versus Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Patients with Multiple Myeloma on Lenalidomide-Based Therapy (RithMM).
BibTeX
@article{gao2026open,
title = {{Open versus closed suctioning on lung volume and oxygenation in ARDS patients with PEEP 5–10 cmH₂O: A randomized controlled trial}},
author = {Haotian Gao and Yidie Ying and Jun Yang},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0351172},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351172},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Open versus closed suctioning on lung volume and oxygenation in ARDS patients with PEEP 5–10 cmH₂O: A randomized controlled trial
AU - Haotian Gao
AU - Yidie Ying
AU - Jun Yang
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/30
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0351172
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351172
AB - Objective: To compare the effects of open suctioning (OS) versus closed suctioning (CS) on lung volume and oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients receiving mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5–10 cmH2O. Methods: This single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 60 ARDS patients, who were randomly assigned to OS (n = 30) or CS (n = 30). All patients received lung-protective ventilation with volume-controlled mode. SpO2 was recorded before suctioning and at 1, 10, 20, and 30 minutes post-suctioning. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed at 30 minutes to calculate the oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2). Changes in end-expiratory lung impedance (ΔEELI) were monitored using electrical impedance tomography (EIT) for the whole lung and four regions of interest (ROI). Secondary outcomes included extubation and survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Results: The absolute values of global ΔEELI were significantly lower in the CS group than in the OS group at 1 minute (−0.54 ± 0.18 vs. −2.32 ± 1.34, P < .001) and 10 minutes (−0.31 ± 0.25 vs. −1.14 ± 0.80, P < .001) after suctioning, indicating that CS better preserved lung volume. However, lung volume recovered more rapidly in the OS group, returning to baseline by 20 minutes, whereas recovery in the CS group was not achieved until 30 minutes. Regional analysis showed that the protective effect of CS was primarily observed in non-dependent regions (ROI 1–3), with no significant difference in the gravity-dependent ROI 4 (P = .430). SpO2 was significantly lower in the OS group than in the CS group at 1 minute post-suctioning (98.07 ± 1.26% vs. 99.03 ± 0.93%, P = .007), and returned to baseline by 20 minutes in the OS group versus 10 minutes in the CS group. No significant difference in oxygenation index was observed at 30 minutes (P = .329). Secondary outcomes, including extubation and survival, did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P > .050). No adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: In ARDS patients receiving PEEP 5–10 cmH2O, CS reduces lung volume loss during suctioning and better preserves early oxygenation, but results in slower post-suctioning lung volume recovery compared with OS. These findings reveal a physiologically important trade-off between the two methods, though their clinical relevance warrants further investigation in larger, outcome-focused trials.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -