Literature DB >> 17962636

Evolution of mechanical ventilation in response to clinical research.

Andrés Esteban1, Niall D Ferguson, Maureen O Meade, Fernando Frutos-Vivar, Carlos Apezteguia, Laurent Brochard, Konstantinos Raymondos, Nicolas Nin, Javier Hurtado, Vinko Tomicic, Marco González, José Elizalde, Peter Nightingale, Fekri Abroug, Paolo Pelosi, Yaseen Arabi, Rui Moreno, Manuel Jibaja, Gabriel D'Empaire, Fredi Sandi, Dimitros Matamis, Ana María Montañez, Antonio Anzueto.   

Abstract

RATIONALE: Recent literature in mechanical ventilation includes strong evidence from randomized trials. Little information is available regarding the influence of these trials on usual clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To describe current mechanical ventilation practices and to assess the influence of interval randomized trials when compared with findings from a 1998 cohort.
METHODS: A prospective international observational cohort study, with a nested comparative study performed in 349 intensive care units in 23 countries. We enrolled 4,968 consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation over a 1-month period. We recorded demographics and daily data related to mechanical ventilation for the duration of ventilation. We systematically reviewed the literature and developed 11 practice-change hypotheses for the comparative cohort study before seeing these results. In assessing practice changes, we only compared data from the 107 intensive care units (1,675 patients) that also participated in the 1998 cohort (1,383 patients).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In 2004 compared with 1998, the use of noninvasive ventilation increased (11.1 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001). Among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, tidal volumes decreased (7.4 vs. 9.1 ml/kg, P < 0.001) and positive end-expiratory pressure levels increased slightly (8.7 vs. 7.7 cm H(2)O, P = 0.02). More patients were successfully extubated after their first attempt of spontaneous breathing (77 vs. 62%, P < 0.001). Use of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation fell dramatically (1.6 vs. 11%, P < 0.001). Observations confirmed 10 of our 11 practice-change hypotheses.
CONCLUSIONS: The strong concordance of predicted and observed practice changes suggests that randomized trial results have advanced mechanical ventilation practices internationally.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17962636     DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200706-893OC

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med        ISSN: 1073-449X            Impact factor:   21.405


  174 in total

1.  Noninvasive ventilation practice patterns for acute respiratory failure in Canadian tertiary care centres: A descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Genevieve Christina Digby; Sean P Keenan; Christopher M Parker; Tasnim Sinuff; Karen E Burns; Sangeeta Mehta; Juan J Ronco; Demetrios J Kutsogiannis; Louise Rose; Najib T Ayas; Luc R Berthiaume; Christine L D'Arsigny; Daniel E Stollery; John Muscedere
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 2.409

2.  Epidemiological trends in invasive mechanical ventilation in the United States: A population-based study.

Authors:  Anuj B Mehta; Sohera N Syeda; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Allan J Walkey
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 3.425

3.  Respiratory muscle contractile inactivity induced by mechanical ventilation in piglets leads to leaky ryanodine receptors and diaphragm weakness.

Authors:  Stefan Matecki; Boris Jung; Nathalie Saint; Valerie Scheuermann; Samir Jaber; Alain Lacampagne
Journal:  J Muscle Res Cell Motil       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 2.698

4.  A bench study of intensive-care-unit ventilators: new versus old and turbine-based versus compressed gas-based ventilators.

Authors:  Arnaud W Thille; Aissam Lyazidi; Jean-Christophe M Richard; Fabrice Galia; Laurent Brochard
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Mechanical ventilation: quo vadis?

Authors:  Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Niall D Ferguson; Andrés Esteban
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Non-invasive ventilation: how far away from the ICU?

Authors:  Alexandre Demoule
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-11-19       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  Impact of nurse-led remote screening and prompting for evidence-based practices in the ICU*.

Authors:  Jeremy M Kahn; Scott R Gunn; Holly L Lorenz; Jeffrey Alvarez; Derek C Angus
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  A prospective international observational prevalence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS Prone Position Network) study.

Authors:  C Guérin; P Beuret; J M Constantin; G Bellani; P Garcia-Olivares; O Roca; J H Meertens; P Azevedo Maia; T Becher; J Peterson; A Larsson; M Gurjar; Z Hajjej; F Kovari; A H Assiri; E Mainas; M S Hasan; D R Morocho-Tutillo; L Baboi; J M Chrétien; G François; L Ayzac; L Chen; L Brochard; A Mercat
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Lung protective ventilation strategy for the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Nicola Petrucci; Carlo De Feo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

10.  Contemporary ventilator management in patients with and at risk of ALI/ARDS.

Authors:  Steven Y Chang; Ousama Dabbagh; Ognen Gajic; Amee Patrawalla; Marie-Carmelle Elie; Daniel S Talmor; Atul Malhotra; Adebola Adesanya; Harry L Anderson; James M Blum; Pauline K Park; Michelle Ng Gong
Journal:  Respir Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.258

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.