Brian M Fuller1, Ian T Ferguson2, Nicholas M Mohr3, Anne M Drewry4, Christopher Palmer5, Brian T Wessman5, Enyo Ablordeppey5, Jacob Keeperman5, Robert J Stephens6, Cristopher C Briscoe6, Angelina A Kolomiets7, Richard S Hotchkiss4, Marin H Kollef8. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO; Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: fullerb@wustl.edu. 2. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Departments of Emergency Medicine and Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO; Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 6. Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 7. School of Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO. 8. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions. RESULTS: A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score-matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63). CONCLUSION: Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions. RESULTS: A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score-matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63). CONCLUSION: Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome.
Authors: J L Vincent; A de Mendonça; F Cantraine; R Moreno; J Takala; P M Suter; C L Sprung; F Colardyn; S Blecher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David B Page; Anne M Drewry; Enyo Ablordeppey; Nicholas M Mohr; Marin H Kollef; Brian M Fuller Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Brian M Fuller; David Page; Robert J Stephens; Brian W Roberts; Anne M Drewry; Enyo Ablordeppey; Nicholas M Mohr; Marin H Kollef Journal: Shock Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Robert J Stephens; Matthew R Dettmer; Brian W Roberts; Enyo Ablordeppey; Susan A Fowler; Marin H Kollef; Brian M Fuller Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Brian W Roberts; Nicholas M Mohr; Enyo Ablordeppey; Anne M Drewry; Ian T Ferguson; Stephen Trzeciak; Marin H Kollef; Brian M Fuller Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Robert J Stephens; Enyo Ablordeppey; Anne M Drewry; Christopher Palmer; Brian T Wessman; Nicholas M Mohr; Brian W Roberts; Stephen Y Liang; Marin H Kollef; Brian M Fuller Journal: Chest Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Xuan Zhang; Frank Li; Prathish K Rajaraman; Jiwoong Choi; Alejandro P Comellas; Eric A Hoffman; Benjamin M Smith; Ching-Long Lin Journal: Eur J Pharm Sci Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 5.112
Authors: Ryan D Pappal; Brian W Roberts; Nicholas M Mohr; Enyo Ablordeppey; Brian T Wessman; Anne M Drewry; Winston Winkler; Yan Yan; Marin H Kollef; Michael S Avidan; Brian M Fuller Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Michael J Lanspa; Michelle Ng Gong; David A Schoenfeld; Kathleen Tiffany Lee; Colin K Grissom; Peter C Hou; Ary Serpa-Neto; Samuel M Brown; Theodore J Iwashyna; Donald M Yealy; Catherine L Hough; Roy G Brower; Carolyn S Calfee; Robert C Hyzy; Michael A Matthay; Russell R Miller; Jay S Steingrub; B Taylor Thompson; Chadwick D Miller; Terry P Clemmer; Gregory W Hendey; David T Huang; Kusum S Mathews; Nida Qadir; Mark Tidswell Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-03