Etienne de Montmollin1, Jerome Aboab2, Ricard Ferrer3, Elie Azoulay4, Djillali Annane2. 1. Medical and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, Garches, France. Electronic address: edemontmollin@gmail.com. 2. Medical and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, Garches, France. 3. Intensive Care Department, Mútua Terrassa University Hospital, University of Barcelona, CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to record intensivists' beliefs on indications and modalities of ventilatory support in critically ill patients with septic shock. METHODS: The instrument is a 23-items questionnaire, sent to all members of the Systemic Inflammation and Sepsis section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 186 intensivists from 30 countries completed the survey. For 95% of respondents, intubation should be performed in patients with neurologic or respiratory failure. There was much less consensus about cardiovascular failure as a reason for initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Among the 7 hemodynamic criteria proposed, none achieved strong agreement. Among respiratory criteria, hypoxemia, signs of respiratory distress, and cyanosis were the most strongly associated with the will to intubate. Among neurologic criteria, a Glasgow score lower than 8 was strongly associated with the will to intubate. Strikingly, 51% of respondents believed that invasive mechanical ventilation would worsen patients with septic shock, mainly through hemodynamic deterioration (70.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the general belief that invasive mechanical ventilation may worsen hemodynamic status in patients with septic shock. There was general agreement with the mandatory need to initiate mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure and coma, but with little respect to hemodynamic criteria.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to record intensivists' beliefs on indications and modalities of ventilatory support in critically illpatients with septic shock. METHODS: The instrument is a 23-items questionnaire, sent to all members of the Systemic Inflammation and Sepsis section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 186 intensivists from 30 countries completed the survey. For 95% of respondents, intubation should be performed in patients with neurologic or respiratory failure. There was much less consensus about cardiovascular failure as a reason for initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Among the 7 hemodynamic criteria proposed, none achieved strong agreement. Among respiratory criteria, hypoxemia, signs of respiratory distress, and cyanosis were the most strongly associated with the will to intubate. Among neurologic criteria, a Glasgow score lower than 8 was strongly associated with the will to intubate. Strikingly, 51% of respondents believed that invasive mechanical ventilation would worsen patients with septic shock, mainly through hemodynamic deterioration (70.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the general belief that invasive mechanical ventilation may worsen hemodynamic status in patients with septic shock. There was general agreement with the mandatory need to initiate mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure and coma, but with little respect to hemodynamic criteria.
Authors: P Guillaume Poliquin; Mia Biondi; Charlene Ranadheera; Mable Hagan; Alexander Bello; Trina Racine; Mark Allan; Duane Funk; Gregory Hansen; B J Hancock; Murray Kesselman; Todd Mortimer; Anand Kumar; Shane Jones; Anders Leung; Allen Grolla; Kaylie N Tran; Kevin Tierney; Xiangguo Qiu; Darwyn Kobasa; James E Strong Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: C Darreau; F Martino; M Saint-Martin; S Jacquier; J F Hamel; M A Nay; N Terzi; G Ledoux; F Roche-Campo; L Camous; F Pene; T Balzer; F Bagate; J Lorber; P Bouju; C Marois; R Robert; S Gaudry; M Commereuc; M Debarre; N Chudeau; P Labroca; K Merouani; P Y Egreteau; V Peigne; C Bornstain; E Lebas; F Benezit; S Vally; S Lasocki; A Robert; A Delbove; N Lerolle Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: H Bryant Nguyen; Anja Kathrin Jaehne; Namita Jayaprakash; Matthew W Semler; Sara Hegab; Angel Coz Yataco; Geneva Tatem; Dhafer Salem; Steven Moore; Kamran Boka; Jasreen Kaur Gill; Jayna Gardner-Gray; Jacqueline Pflaum; Juan Pablo Domecq; Gina Hurst; Justin B Belsky; Raymond Fowkes; Ronald B Elkin; Steven Q Simpson; Jay L Falk; Daniel J Singer; Emanuel P Rivers Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ting Yang; Yongchun Shen; John G Park; Phillip J Schulte; Andrew C Hanson; Vitaly Herasevich; Yue Dong; Philippe R Bauer Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.217