OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current practice of mechanical ventilation in the ICU and the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving it. DESIGN: Pre-planned sub-study of a multicenter, multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: 13,322 patients admitted to 299 intensive care units (ICUs) from 35 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients were divided into three groups: no mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive MV (NIV), and invasive MV. More than half of the patients (53% [CI: 52.2-53.9%]) were mechanically ventilated at ICU admission. FIO2, VT and PEEP used during invasive MV were on average 50% (40-80%), 8 mL/kg actual body weight (6.9-9.4 mL/kg) and 5 cmH2O (3-6 cmH2O), respectively. Several invMV patients (17.3% (CI:16.4-18.3%)) were ventilated with zero PEEP (ZEEP). These patients exhibited a significantly increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality, compared with patients ventilated with higher PEEP (O/E ratio 1.12 [1.05-1.18]). NIV was used in 4.2% (CI: 3.8-4.5%) of all patients and was associated with an improved risk-adjusted outcome (OR 0.79, [0.69-0.90]). CONCLUSION: Ventilation mode and parameter settings for MV varied significantly across ICUs. Our results provide evidence that some ventilatory modes and settings could still be used against current evidence and recommendations. This includes ventilation with tidal volumes >8mL/kg body weight in patients with a low PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ZEEP in invMV patients. Invasive mechanical ventilation with ZEEP was associated with a worse outcome, even after controlling for severity of disease. Since our study did not document indications for MV, the association between MV settings and outcome must be viewed with caution.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current practice of mechanical ventilation in the ICU and the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving it. DESIGN: Pre-planned sub-study of a multicenter, multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: 13,322 patients admitted to 299 intensive care units (ICUs) from 35 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS:Patients were divided into three groups: no mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive MV (NIV), and invasive MV. More than half of the patients (53% [CI: 52.2-53.9%]) were mechanically ventilated at ICU admission. FIO2, VT and PEEP used during invasive MV were on average 50% (40-80%), 8 mL/kg actual body weight (6.9-9.4 mL/kg) and 5 cmH2O (3-6 cmH2O), respectively. Several invMV patients (17.3% (CI:16.4-18.3%)) were ventilated with zero PEEP (ZEEP). These patients exhibited a significantly increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality, compared with patients ventilated with higher PEEP (O/E ratio 1.12 [1.05-1.18]). NIV was used in 4.2% (CI: 3.8-4.5%) of all patients and was associated with an improved risk-adjusted outcome (OR 0.79, [0.69-0.90]). CONCLUSION: Ventilation mode and parameter settings for MV varied significantly across ICUs. Our results provide evidence that some ventilatory modes and settings could still be used against current evidence and recommendations. This includes ventilation with tidal volumes >8mL/kg body weight in patients with a low PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ZEEP in invMV patients. Invasive mechanical ventilation with ZEEP was associated with a worse outcome, even after controlling for severity of disease. Since our study did not document indications for MV, the association between MV settings and outcome must be viewed with caution.
Authors: Peter Q Eichacker; Eric P Gerstenberger; Steven M Banks; Xizhong Cui; Charles Natanson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-08-28 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Evans R Fernández-Pérez; Mark T Keegan; Daniel R Brown; Rolf D Hubmayr; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Tasnim Sinuff; Neill K J Adhikari; Maureen O Meade; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Claudio M Martin; Deborah J Cook Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gabriella de Durante; Monica del Turco; Laura Rustichini; Patrizia Cosimini; Francesco Giunta; Leonard D Hudson; Arthur S Slutsky; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: V M Ranieri; P M Suter; C Tortorella; R De Tullio; J M Dayer; A Brienza; F Bruno; A S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R Moreno; J L Vincent; R Matos; A Mendonça; F Cantraine; L Thijs; J Takala; C Sprung; M Antonelli; H Bruining; S Willatts Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Pratik P Pandharipande; Tyler Koestner; Leonard D Hudson; Jennifer L Thompson; Ayumi K Shintani; E Wesley Ely; Timothy D Girard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Martin Britos; Elizabeth Smoot; Kathleen D Liu; B Taylor Thompson; William Checkley; Roy G Brower Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 7.598
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
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 17.440