Karim S Ladha1,2, Brian T Bateman1,3,4, Timothy T Houle1, Myrthe A C De Jong1, Marcos F Vidal Melo1, Krista F Huybrechts3, Tobias Kurth5, Matthias Eikermann1. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Anesthesia, Toronto General Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Institute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether significant variation exists in the use of protective ventilation across individual anesthesia providers and whether this difference can be explained by patient, procedure, and provider-related characteristics. METHODS: The cohort consisted of 262 anesthesia providers treating 57,372 patients at a tertiary care hospital between 2007 and 2014. Protective ventilation was defined as a median positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cm H2O or more, tidal volume of <10 mL/kg of predicted body weight and plateau pressure of <30 cm H2O. Analysis was performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models with propensity scores to adjust for covariates. The definition of protective ventilation was modified in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, the mean probability of administering protective ventilation was 53.8% (2.5th percentile of provider 19.9%, 97.5th percentile 80.8%). After adjustment for a large number of covariates, there was little change in the results with a mean probability of 51.1% (2.5th percentile 24.7%, 97.5th percentile 77.2%). The variations persisted when the thresholds for protective ventilation were changed. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variability across individual anesthesia providers in the use of intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation. Our data suggest that this variability is highly driven by individual preference, rather than patient, procedure, or provider-related characteristics.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether significant variation exists in the use of protective ventilation across individual anesthesia providers and whether this difference can be explained by patient, procedure, and provider-related characteristics. METHODS: The cohort consisted of 262 anesthesia providers treating 57,372 patients at a tertiary care hospital between 2007 and 2014. Protective ventilation was defined as a median positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cm H2O or more, tidal volume of <10 mL/kg of predicted body weight and plateau pressure of <30 cm H2O. Analysis was performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models with propensity scores to adjust for covariates. The definition of protective ventilation was modified in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, the mean probability of administering protective ventilation was 53.8% (2.5th percentile of provider 19.9%, 97.5th percentile 80.8%). After adjustment for a large number of covariates, there was little change in the results with a mean probability of 51.1% (2.5th percentile 24.7%, 97.5th percentile 77.2%). The variations persisted when the thresholds for protective ventilation were changed. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variability across individual anesthesia providers in the use of intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation. Our data suggest that this variability is highly driven by individual preference, rather than patient, procedure, or provider-related characteristics.
Authors: Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; Ralph G DePalma; Cecilia Mosca; Nancy A Healey; Dharam J Kumbhani Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Olubukola O Nafiu; Satya K Ramachandran; Ray Ackwerh; Kevin K Tremper; Darrell A Campbell; James C Stanley Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: James M Blum; Michael Maile; Pauline K Park; Michelle Morris; Elizabeth Jewell; Ronald Dechert; Andrew L Rosenberg Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Esther K Wolthuis; Goda Choi; Mark C Dessing; Paul Bresser; Rene Lutter; Misa Dzoljic; Tom van der Poll; Margreeth B Vroom; Markus Hollmann; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Justin B Dimick; Steven L Chen; Paul A Taheri; William G Henderson; Shukri F Khuri; Darrell A Campbell Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: A Bagchi; M I Rudolph; P Y Ng; F P Timm; D R Long; S Shaefi; K Ladha; M F Vidal Melo; M Eikermann Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: Friederike C Althoff; Xinling Xu; Luca J Wachtendorf; Denys Shay; Maria Patrocinio; Maximilian S Schaefer; Timothy T Houle; Philipp Fassbender; Matthias Eikermann; Karuna Wongtangman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692