OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the physiologic effects of applying advice on mechanical ventilation by an open-loop, physiologic model-based clinical decision support system. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: University and Regional Hospitals' ICUs. PATIENTS: Varied adult ICU population. INTERVENTIONS: Advice were applied if accepted by physicians for a period of up to 4-8 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included for data analysis. Acceptance of advice was high with 95.7% of advice applied. In 41 patients in pressure support ventilation, following system advice led to significant decrease in PS, with PS reduced below 8 cm H2O in 15 patients (37%), a level not prohibiting extubation. Fraction of end-tidal CO2 values did not change, and increase in respiratory rate/VT was within clinical limits, indicating that in general, the system maintained appropriate patient breathing effort. In 31 patients in control mode ventilation, pressure control and tidal volume settings were decreased significantly, with tidal volume reduced below 8 mL/kg predicted body weight in nine patients (29%). Minute ventilation was maintained by a significant increase in respiratory rate. Significant reductions in FIO2 were seen on elevated baseline median values of 50% in both support and control mode-ventilated patients, causing clinically acceptable reductions in oxygen saturation. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that during a short period, the clinical decision support system provided appropriate suggestions of mechanical ventilation in a varied ICU population, significantly reducing ventilation to levels which might be considered safe and beneficial.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the physiologic effects of applying advice on mechanical ventilation by an open-loop, physiologic model-based clinical decision support system. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: University and Regional Hospitals' ICUs. PATIENTS: Varied adult ICU population. INTERVENTIONS: Advice were applied if accepted by physicians for a period of up to 4-8 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included for data analysis. Acceptance of advice was high with 95.7% of advice applied. In 41 patients in pressure support ventilation, following system advice led to significant decrease in PS, with PS reduced below 8 cm H2O in 15 patients (37%), a level not prohibiting extubation. Fraction of end-tidal CO2 values did not change, and increase in respiratory rate/VT was within clinical limits, indicating that in general, the system maintained appropriate patient breathing effort. In 31 patients in control mode ventilation, pressure control and tidal volume settings were decreased significantly, with tidal volume reduced below 8 mL/kg predicted body weight in nine patients (29%). Minute ventilation was maintained by a significant increase in respiratory rate. Significant reductions in FIO2 were seen on elevated baseline median values of 50% in both support and control mode-ventilated patients, causing clinically acceptable reductions in oxygen saturation. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that during a short period, the clinical decision support system provided appropriate suggestions of mechanical ventilation in a varied ICU population, significantly reducing ventilation to levels which might be considered safe and beneficial.
Authors: Alan H Morris; Brian Stagg; Michael Lanspa; James Orme; Terry P Clemmer; Lindell K Weaver; Frank Thomas; Colin K Grissom; Ellie Hirshberg; Thomas D East; Carrie Jane Wallace; Michael P Young; Dean F Sittig; Antonio Pesenti; Michela Bombino; Eduardo Beck; Katherine A Sward; Charlene Weir; Shobha S Phansalkar; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; R Duncan Hite; Douglas F Willson; Jerry J Zimmerman; Vinay M Nadkarni; Adrienne Randolph; Martha A Q Curley; Christopher J L Newth; Jacques Lacroix; Michael S D Agus; Kang H Lee; Bennett P deBoisblanc; R Scott Evans; Dean K Sorenson; Anthony Wong; Michael V Boland; David W Grainger; Willard H Dere; Alan S Crandall; Julio C Facelli; Stanley M Huff; Peter J Haug; Ulrike Pielmeier; Stephen E Rees; Dan S Karbing; Steen Andreassen; Eddy Fan; Roberta M Goldring; Kenneth I Berger; Beno W Oppenheimer; E Wesley Ely; Ognjen Gajic; Brian Pickering; David A Schoenfeld; Irena Tocino; Russell S Gonnering; Peter J Pronovost; Lucy A Savitz; Didier Dreyfuss; Arthur S Slutsky; James D Crapo; Derek Angus; Michael R Pinsky; Brent James; Donald Berwick Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Binghao Zhang; Damian Ratano; Laurent J Brochard; Dimitrios Georgopoulos; James Duffin; Michael Long; Tom Schepens; Irene Telias; Arthur S Slutsky; Ewan C Goligher; Timothy C Y Chan Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 1.977
Authors: Stephen Edward Rees; Savino Spadaro; Francesca Dalla Corte; Nilanjan Dey; Jakob Bredal Brohus; Gaetano Scaramuzzo; David Lodahl; Robert Ravnholt Winding; Carlo Alberto Volta; Dan Stieper Karbing Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Brijesh Patel; Sharon Mumby; Nicholas Johnson; Emanuela Falaschetti; Jorgen Hansen; Ian Adcock; Danny McAuley; Masao Takata; Dan S Karbing; Matthieu Jabaudon; Peter Schellengowski; Stephen E Rees Journal: Trials Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: M P Vizcaychipi; Laura Martins; James R White; Dan Stleper Karbing; Amandeep Gupta; Suveer Singh; Leyla Osman; Jeronimo Moreno-Cuesta; Steve Rees Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.692