PURPOSE: Although pediatric intensivists claim to embrace lung protective ventilation for acute lung injury (ALI), ventilator management is variable. We describe ventilator changes clinicians made for children with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and evaluate the potential acceptability of a pediatric ventilation protocol. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed in a tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The study period was from January 2000 to July 2007. We included mechanically ventilated children with PaO(2)/FiO(2) (P/F) ratio less than 300. We assessed variability in ventilator management by evaluating actual changes to ventilator settings after an arterial blood gas (ABG). We evaluated the potential acceptability of a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol we adapted from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH/NHLBI) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Network protocols by comparing actual practice changes in ventilator settings to changes that would have been recommended by the protocol. RESULTS: A total of 2,719 ABGs from 402 patients were associated with 6,017 ventilator settings. Clinicians infrequently decreased FiO(2), even when the PaO(2) was high (>68 mmHg). The protocol would have recommended more positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) than was used in actual practice 42% of the time in the mid PaO(2) range (55-68 mmHg) and 67% of the time in the low PaO(2) range (<55 mmHg). Clinicians often made no change to either peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) or ventilator rate (VR) when the protocol would have recommended a change, even when the pH was greater than 7.45 with PIP at least 35 cmH(2)O. CONCLUSIONS: There may be lost opportunities to minimize potentially injurious ventilator settings for children with ALI. A reproducible pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol could prompt clinicians to make ventilator changes that are consistent with lung protective ventilation.
PURPOSE: Although pediatric intensivists claim to embrace lung protective ventilation for acute lung injury (ALI), ventilator management is variable. We describe ventilator changes clinicians made for children with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and evaluate the potential acceptability of a pediatric ventilation protocol. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed in a tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The study period was from January 2000 to July 2007. We included mechanically ventilated children with PaO(2)/FiO(2) (P/F) ratio less than 300. We assessed variability in ventilator management by evaluating actual changes to ventilator settings after an arterial blood gas (ABG). We evaluated the potential acceptability of a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol we adapted from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH/NHLBI) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Network protocols by comparing actual practice changes in ventilator settings to changes that would have been recommended by the protocol. RESULTS: A total of 2,719 ABGs from 402 patients were associated with 6,017 ventilator settings. Clinicians infrequently decreased FiO(2), even when the PaO(2) was high (>68 mmHg). The protocol would have recommended more positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) than was used in actual practice 42% of the time in the mid PaO(2) range (55-68 mmHg) and 67% of the time in the low PaO(2) range (<55 mmHg). Clinicians often made no change to either peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) or ventilator rate (VR) when the protocol would have recommended a change, even when the pH was greater than 7.45 with PIP at least 35 cmH(2)O. CONCLUSIONS: There may be lost opportunities to minimize potentially injurious ventilator settings for children with ALI. A reproducible pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol could prompt clinicians to make ventilator changes that are consistent with lung protective ventilation.
Authors: M B Amato; C S Barbas; D M Medeiros; R B Magaldi; G P Schettino; G Lorenzi-Filho; R A Kairalla; D Deheinzelin; C Munoz; R Oliveira; T Y Takagaki; C R Carvalho Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Martha A Q Curley; Patricia L Hibberd; Lori D Fineman; David Wypij; Mei-Chiung Shih; John E Thompson; Mary Jo C Grant; Frederick E Barr; Natalie Z Cvijanovich; Lauren Sorce; Peter M Luckett; Michael A Matthay; John H Arnold Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas F Willson; Neal J Thomas; Barry P Markovitz; Loren A Bauman; Joseph V DiCarlo; Steven Pon; Brian R Jacobs; Larry S Jefferson; Mark R Conaway; Edward A Egan Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-01-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; David Conti; Todd A Alonzo; Robert D Bart; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nsikak J Umoh; Eddy Fan; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Jonathan E Sevransky; Cheryl R Dennison; Carl Shanholtz; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gordon D Rubenfeld; Claudette Cooper; Greg Carter; B Taylor Thompson; Leonard D Hudson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Kaushik Parvathaneni; Nadir Yehya; Anoopindar K Bhalla; Neal J Thomas; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Sarah Rubin; Sanjay Belani; Dennis Leung; Simon Erickson; Lincoln S Smith; Jerry J Zimmerman; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Kaushik Parvathaneni; Nadir Yehya; Anoopindar K Bhalla; Neal J Thomas; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.405