背景：壓瘡是反映臨床照護品質的重要指標之一。目的：比較彈性宜拉膠帶與親水性固定帶兩種方案對氣管插管相關性壓瘡之預防成效。方法：採類實驗研究設計，立意取樣，以某醫學中心加護室留置經口氣管插管之病人為對象。研究工具『氣管插管相關性壓瘡觀察記錄表』專家內容效度為.97, Conbach's alpha 為 .95。結果：彈性宜拉膠帶組收案51人、親水性固定帶組46人，兩組基本屬性無顯著差異。彈性宜拉膠帶組有8位發生皮膚破損、親水性固定帶組有4位；兩組固定氣管內管之耗材平均花費達顯著差異(p =.000) 。彈性宜拉膠帶組232.1±92.2元，親水性固定帶組460±0元；彈性宜拉膠帶組每日固定氣管內管的護理工時較長平均263.8±125.3秒，親水性固定帶組77.45±73.8秒( p =.000)。結論/ 實務應用：結果可作為制定臨床氣管內管照護方案之參考，亦可作為訂定在職教育方案及標準作業之依據。

Background: Pressure ulcer is one of the major indicators to reflect the quality of nursing care Purposes: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Elastic Adhesive Tape (EAT) and Anchorfast Endotracheal Tube Faster (ATF) endotracheal tube securing method for prevention endotracheal tube association pressure ulcer. Methods: The quasi-experimental study design with purpose sampling and subjects were recruited from critical care unit in medical center. The observation record of endotracheal tube correlation pressure ulcer, the CVI is .97, internal consistency alpha is .95. Results: The EAT group recruited 51 participants and ATF group recruited 46 participants. The results showed that there were no significant difference to demographic data, The EAT group reported n=8 face skin tears, the ATF group reported n=4.The EAT group was 232.1±92.2 NT dollars for endotracheal tube securing. The ATF group was 232.1±92.2 NT dollars (p=.000). Compared with the ATF, the EAT group took longer time in operation endotracheal tube daily care (263.8±125.3 with 77.45±73.8 seconds, p=.000). Conclusion/Implications for practice: The results of this study may be used to develop clinical guidelines for endotracheal tube care and offer important references for continued education and standard operating procedures of securing endotracheal tube.