Hospital and long-term outcomes for subglottic suction and polyurethane cuff versus standard endotracheal tubes in emergency intubation (PreVent 2): a randomised controlled phase 2 trial
Authors' conclusion
At 6-month follow-up, neither quality of life, cognitive function, nor laryngeal injury differed between groups.
Study context
- Population
- Adults requiring emergency endotracheal intubation in the ED or elsewhere in hospital for acute respiratory distress or failure (OHSU and YNHH, USA)157 completed 6-month visit
- Participants
- 1,068 adults
- Comparison
- PU-EVAC vs PVC
- PU-EVACn = 535
- PVCn = 533reference
- Primary endpoint
- Coprimary: laryngeal injury, quality of life (SF-36 PCS and MCS), cognitive function
- Follow-up
- 6 months
Methodological detailsphase 2, two centres, 1:1 randomisation
- Phase 2
- Two centres
- 1:1 randomisation
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Coprimary endpoints
PU-EVAC vs PVCEstimate (95% CI)P value
Laryngeal injury
risk difference 0.11(−0.03 to 0.20)
P = 0.098PCS
mean difference −0.52(−4.21 to 3.17)
P = 0.78MCS
mean difference −2.98(−7.03 to 1.07)
P = 0.15Cognitive impairment
risk difference 0.05(−0.07 to 0.17)
P = 0.44Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | PU-EVAC | PVC | Risk difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVAC) | 8% | 6% | 0.02 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.05) | |
| Possible VAP | 6% | 5% | 0.01 (CI −0.02 to 0.04) | |
| −0.04−0.0200.020.040.06Difference (linear scale) |
Death · 6 months
- Death: 558 died in total
Original publication
Hospital and long-term outcomes for subglottic suction and polyurethane cuff versus standard endotracheal tubes in emergency intubation (PreVent 2): a randomised controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med. Published 27 November 2025. doi:10. 1016/ s2213-2600(25)00294-2
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →