Cuff PressureNCT06965400
Comparison of Automatic and Manual Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Monitoring in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients
A study of Cuff Pressure and Mechanical Ventilation, run by Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital at 4 sites in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This prospective, randomized controlled cross-over study compares automatic (IntelliCuff®) and manual methods of endotracheal tube cuff pressure (CP) monitoring in pediatric intensive care patients. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 1 month to 18 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cuff Pressure, Mechanical Ventilation, Pediatric Intensive Care
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 32 participants
- Where
- 4 sitesTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 2 May 2025to 15 Aug 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 1 month to 18 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients aged between 1 month and 18 years who were intubated with a cuffed endotracheal tube and expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours were eligible for inclusion
Who cannot join
- Patients with tracheostomy, known tracheal pathology, extubated within 48 hours, or those requiring frequent ventilator adjustments due to clinical instability were excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
4 sites in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)4 sites
Aydin Obstetric and pediatrics Hospital
Aydin, 09020
Cam Sakura Research and Training Hospital
Istanbul, 34001
Acibadem University, Acibadem Altunizade Hospital
Istanbul
The Health Sciences University Izmir Behçet Uz Child Health and Diseases Research and Training Hospital
Izmir
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Automatic and Manual Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Monitoring in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients: A Randomized Controlled Cross-Over Study
This prospective, randomized controlled cross-over study compares automatic (IntelliCuff®) and manual methods of endotracheal tube cuff pressure (CP) monitoring in pediatric intensive care patients. The study evaluates the frequency and duration of cuff pressure deviations outside the recommended range (15-25 cmH₂O) and assesses the impact on nursing workload.
Read the detailed description
Optimal cuff pressure management in pediatric patients undergoing mechanical ventilation is critical to prevent complications such as aspiration pneumonia or tracheal injuries. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of continuous automatic cuff pressure monitoring using the IntelliCuff® system versus standard manual cuff pressure monitoring performed by nurses every 2 hours.
Patients aged between 1 month and 18 years requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours participated in a cross-over study at two tertiary pediatric intensive care units. Each patient underwent two consecutive 24-hour monitoring periods: one with automatic cuff pressure monitoring and another with manual monitoring. Data collected included the frequency and total duration of low (<15 cmH₂O) and high (>25 cmH₂O) pressure episodes, number of manual corrections required, and total nursing intervention time.
This study aims to determine whether automatic monitoring provides better control of cuff pressure, reduces the frequency of cuff-related complications, and decreases nursing workload compared to manual monitoring.
- Being tested
- Automatic Cuff Pressure Control
- Keywords
- Cuff pressure, Automatic monitoring, Mechanical ventilation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Automatic Cuff Pressure ControlDevice
Also called IntelliCuff System
he IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland) continuously monitored and automatically adjusted cuff pressure to keep it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Manual intervention was only required upon system alert.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Manual Cuff Pressure Monitoring | Active comparator | In this arm, cuff pressure was manually measured and adjusted every 2 hours by nurses using a manometer, to maintain a target pressure between 15 and 25 cmH₂O over a 24-hour period. Receives: Device: Automatic Cuff Pressure Control |
| Automatic Cuff Pressure Monitoring | Experimental | In this phase, endotracheal tube cuff pressure was continuously monitored using the IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland), which automatically adjusted the pressure to maintain it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Nurses intervened only if the system alerted due to a deviation. Receives: Device: Automatic Cuff Pressure Control |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Total Time Spent Under Low Cuff Pressure
TTotal cumulative time (in hours) during which the endotracheal tube cuff pressure remained below 15 cmH₂O throughout the 24-hour monitoring period in each study phase.
Measured: 24 hours per intervention phase
Total Time Spent Under High Cuff Pressure
Total cumulative time (in hours) during which cuff pressure exceeded 25 cmH₂O in either monitoring method.
Measured: 24 hours per intervention phase
Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required
The number of times the cuff pressure had to be manually corrected due to deviations from the target range during each phase.
Measured: 24 hours per intervention phase
Secondary outcomes (1)
Total Nursing Intervention Time
Total time spent by nurses for cuff pressure monitoring and corrections, including routine checks and manual interventions.
Measured: 24 hours per intervention phase
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 May 2025
- Study start2 May 2025
- Primary completion1 Aug 2025
- Study completion15 Aug 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cuff PressureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- 48 hours total (24 hours each phase, manual vs. automatic)
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 32 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Hamilton Medical AG
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Hasan ağın, Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital
- Investigators
- Hasan Agin, Prof.Dr., Study chair, Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06965400
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2024/896
- Status last verified
- Nov 2025
- First submitted
- 2 May 2025
- Last updated
- 25 Nov 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Topjian AA, Raymond TT, Atkins D, Chan M, Duff JP, Joyner BL Jr, Lasa JJ, Lavonas EJ, Levy A, Mahgoub M, Meckler GD, Roberts KE, Sutton RM, Schexnayder SM; Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Collaborators. Part 4: Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20;142(16_suppl_2):S469-S523. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000901. Epub 2020 Oct 21. No abstract available.
PubMed 33081526Vottier G, Matrot B, Jones P, Dauger S. A cross-over study of continuous tracheal cuff pressure monitoring in critically-ill children. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Jan;42(1):132-3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4103-8. Epub 2015 Oct 29. No abstract available.
PubMed 26515515Dauvergne JE, Geffray AL, Asehnoune K, Rozec B, Lakhal K. Automatic regulation of the endotracheal tube cuff pressure with a portable elastomeric device. A randomised controlled study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Jun;39(3):435-441. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 May 4.
PubMed 32376293Zhu G, Wang X, Cao X, Yang C, Wang B, Ang Y, Duan M. The effect of different endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring systems on postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing tracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Mar 25;24(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02499-5.
PubMed 38528475Chenelle CT, Oto J, Sulemanji D, Fisher DF, Kacmarek RM. Evaluation of an automated endotracheal tube cuff controller during simulated mechanical ventilation. Respir Care. 2015 Feb;60(2):183-90. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03387. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
PubMed 25425705Alzahrani AR, Al Abbasi S, Abahoussin OK, Al Shehri TO, Al-Dorzi HM, Tamim HM, Sadat M, Arabi YM. Prevalence and predictors of out-of-range cuff pressure of endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes: a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct 15;15:147. doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0132-7.
PubMed 26471790Soydan E, Gokpinar EE, Karakaya O, Sevinc ZG, Ceylan G, Erbas MG, Albayrak S, Demirel O, Yay ED, Aslan K, Ozdamar NK, Turgut N, Karaarslan U, Agin H. Automated Versus Manual Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Control in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Randomized Crossover Trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2026 Jul 16. doi: 10.1002/pan.70268. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 42461207
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Nov 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Automatic and Manual Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Monitoring in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients: A Randomized Controlled Cross-Over Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06965400
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2024/896
- Keywords
- Cuff pressure, Automatic monitoring, Mechanical ventilation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 32 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Dr. Behcet Uz Children's HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Hamilton Medical AG
- Study start
- 2 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Aug 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 May 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This prospective, randomized controlled cross-over study compares automatic (IntelliCuff®) and manual methods of endotracheal tube cuff pressure (CP) monitoring in pediatric intensive care patients. The study evaluates the frequency and duration of cuff pressure deviations outside the recommended range (15-25 cmH₂O) and assesses the impact on nursing workload.
Detailed description
Optimal cuff pressure management in pediatric patients undergoing mechanical ventilation is critical to prevent complications such as aspiration pneumonia or tracheal injuries. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of continuous automatic cuff pressure monitoring using the IntelliCuff® system versus standard manual cuff pressure monitoring performed by nurses every 2 hours.
Patients aged between 1 month and 18 years requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours participated in a cross-over study at two tertiary pediatric intensive care units. Each patient underwent two consecutive 24-hour monitoring periods: one with automatic cuff pressure monitoring and another with manual monitoring. Data collected included the frequency and total duration of low (<15 cmH₂O) and high (>25 cmH₂O) pressure episodes, number of manual corrections required, and total nursing intervention time.
This study aims to determine whether automatic monitoring provides better control of cuff pressure, reduces the frequency of cuff-related complications, and decreases nursing workload compared to manual monitoring.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- 48 hours total (24 hours each phase, manual vs. automatic)
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Manual Cuff Pressure Monitoring | Active comparator | Device: Automatic Cuff Pressure ControlIn this arm, cuff pressure was manually measured and adjusted every 2 hours by nurses using a manometer, to maintain a target pressure between 15 and 25 cmH₂O over a 24-hour period. |
| Automatic Cuff Pressure Monitoring | Experimental | Device: Automatic Cuff Pressure ControlIn this phase, endotracheal tube cuff pressure was continuously monitored using the IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland), which automatically adjusted the pressure to maintain it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Nurses intervened only if the system alerted due to a deviation. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 1 month to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients aged between 1 month and 18 years who were intubated with a cuffed endotracheal tube and expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours were eligible for inclusion
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with tracheostomy, known tracheal pathology, extubated within 48 hours, or those requiring frequent ventilator adjustments due to clinical instability were excluded.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic Cuff Pressure ControlAlso: IntelliCuff Systemhe IntelliCuff® system (Hamilton Medical, Switzerland) continuously monitored and automatically adjusted cuff pressure to keep it within the target range of 15-25 cmH₂O. Manual intervention was only required upon system alert. | Device | Automatic Cuff Pressure Monitoring, Manual Cuff Pressure Monitoring |
Primary outcome
Total Time Spent Under Low Cuff Pressure
Time frame: 24 hours per intervention phase
TTotal cumulative time (in hours) during which the endotracheal tube cuff pressure remained below 15 cmH₂O throughout the 24-hour monitoring period in each study phase.
Total Time Spent Under High Cuff Pressure
Time frame: 24 hours per intervention phase
Total cumulative time (in hours) during which cuff pressure exceeded 25 cmH₂O in either monitoring method.
Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required Number of Manual Corrections Required
Time frame: 24 hours per intervention phase
The number of times the cuff pressure had to be manually corrected due to deviations from the target range during each phase.
1 secondary outcome
Total Nursing Intervention Time
Time frame: 24 hours per intervention phase
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Nov 2025.
- Background: PubMed 33081526Topjian AA, Raymond TT, Atkins D, Chan M, Duff JP, Joyner BL Jr, Lasa JJ, Lavonas EJ, Levy A, Mahgoub M, Meckler GD, Roberts KE, Sutton RM, Schexnayder SM; Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Collaborators. Part 4: Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20;142(16_suppl_2):S469-S523. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000901. Epub 2020 Oct 21. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 26515515Vottier G, Matrot B, Jones P, Dauger S. A cross-over study of continuous tracheal cuff pressure monitoring in critically-ill children. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Jan;42(1):132-3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4103-8. Epub 2015 Oct 29. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 32376293Dauvergne JE, Geffray AL, Asehnoune K, Rozec B, Lakhal K. Automatic regulation of the endotracheal tube cuff pressure with a portable elastomeric device. A randomised controlled study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Jun;39(3):435-441. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 May 4.
- Results publication: PubMed 38528475Zhu G, Wang X, Cao X, Yang C, Wang B, Ang Y, Duan M. The effect of different endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring systems on postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing tracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Mar 25;24(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02499-5.
- Results publication: PubMed 25425705Chenelle CT, Oto J, Sulemanji D, Fisher DF, Kacmarek RM. Evaluation of an automated endotracheal tube cuff controller during simulated mechanical ventilation. Respir Care. 2015 Feb;60(2):183-90. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03387. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
- Results publication: PubMed 26471790Alzahrani AR, Al Abbasi S, Abahoussin OK, Al Shehri TO, Al-Dorzi HM, Tamim HM, Sadat M, Arabi YM. Prevalence and predictors of out-of-range cuff pressure of endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes: a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct 15;15:147. doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0132-7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42461207Soydan E, Gokpinar EE, Karakaya O, Sevinc ZG, Ceylan G, Erbas MG, Albayrak S, Demirel O, Yay ED, Aslan K, Ozdamar NK, Turgut N, Karaarslan U, Agin H. Automated Versus Manual Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Control in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Randomized Crossover Trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2026 Jul 16. doi: 10.1002/pan.70268. Online ahead of print.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Cuff Pressure
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Real-World Validation of A Minimally Disruptive Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Huawei Smartwatch in Malaysia
Hypertension, Vascular Disease
Recruiting
Effect of a Brief Educational Intervention on Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Intubation, Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Irrigation Fluid Volume, Tube Cuff Pressure, and Neck Swelling During Shoulder Arthroscopy
Shoulder Arthroscopy, Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Effects of Video LMA Cuff Pressure in Tympanoplasty.
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure, Airway Management
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Effect of Loss-of-Resistance Syringe Training on Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure, Postoperative Sore Throat
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Hasan Agin, Prof.Dr. study chair
Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital
4 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study of Cuff Pressure and Mechanical Ventilation, run by Dr. Behcet Uz Children's Hospital at 4 sites in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Nov 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 4 sites in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Total Time Spent Under Low Cuff Pressure (time frame: 24 hours per intervention phase). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06965400, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Nov 2025.