Clark G Owyang1, Jeremy L Kim2, George Loo3, Shamsuddoha Ranginwala4, Kusum S Mathews5. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States; Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: owyang@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, St. David's South Austin Medical Center, Austin, TX, United States. Electronic address: jeremylkim@gmail.com. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: george.loo@mountsinai.org. 4. Department of Respiratory Therapy, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: shamsuddoha.ranginwala@mountsinai.org. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: kusum.mathews@mssm.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of ED crowding on lung-protective ventilation (LPV) utilization in critically ill ED patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult mechanically ventilated ED patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU), over a 3.5-year period at a single academic tertiary care hospital. Clinical data, including reason for intubation, severity of illness (MPM0-III), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) risk score (EDLIPS), and ventilator settings were extracted via electronic query of electronic health record and standardized chart abstraction. Crowding metrics were obtained at 5-min intervals and averaged over the ED stay, stratified by acuity and disposition. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict likelihood of LPV prior to ED departure. RESULTS: Mechanical ventilation was used in 446 patients for a median ED duration of 3.7 h (interquartile ratio, IQR, 2.3, 5.6). Mean MPM0-III score was 32.5 ± 22.7, with high risk for ARDS (EDLIPS ≥5) seen in 373 (82%) patients. Initial and final ED ventilator settings differed in 134 (30.0%) patients, of which only 47 (35.1%) involved tidal volume changes. Higher percentages of active ED patients (workup in-progress) and those requiring eventual admission were associated with lower odds of LPV utilization by ED departure (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00; OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00, respectively). In periods of high volume, ventilator adjustments to settings other than the tidal volume were associated with higher odds of LPV utilization. Reason for intubation, MPM0-III, and EDLIPS were not associated with LPV utilization, with no interactions detected in times of crowding. CONCLUSIONS: ED patients remain on suboptimal tidal volume settings with infrequent ventilator adjustments during the ED stay. Hospitals should focus on both systemic factors and bedside physician and/or respiratory therapist interventions to increase LPV utilization in times of ED boarding and crowding for all patients.
OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of ED crowding on lung-protective ventilation (LPV) utilization in critically ill EDpatients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult mechanically ventilated ED patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU), over a 3.5-year period at a single academic tertiary care hospital. Clinical data, including reason for intubation, severity of illness (MPM0-III), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) risk score (EDLIPS), and ventilator settings were extracted via electronic query of electronic health record and standardized chart abstraction. Crowding metrics were obtained at 5-min intervals and averaged over the ED stay, stratified by acuity and disposition. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict likelihood of LPV prior to ED departure. RESULTS: Mechanical ventilation was used in 446 patients for a median ED duration of 3.7 h (interquartile ratio, IQR, 2.3, 5.6). Mean MPM0-III score was 32.5 ± 22.7, with high risk for ARDS (EDLIPS ≥5) seen in 373 (82%) patients. Initial and final ED ventilator settings differed in 134 (30.0%) patients, of which only 47 (35.1%) involved tidal volume changes. Higher percentages of active ED patients (workup in-progress) and those requiring eventual admission were associated with lower odds of LPV utilization by ED departure (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00; OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00, respectively). In periods of high volume, ventilator adjustments to settings other than the tidal volume were associated with higher odds of LPV utilization. Reason for intubation, MPM0-III, and EDLIPS were not associated with LPV utilization, with no interactions detected in times of crowding. CONCLUSIONS: ED patients remain on suboptimal tidal volume settings with infrequent ventilator adjustments during the ED stay. Hospitals should focus on both systemic factors and bedside physician and/or respiratory therapist interventions to increase LPV utilization in times of ED boarding and crowding for all patients.
Authors: Thomas L Higgins; Daniel Teres; Wayne S Copes; Brian H Nathanson; Maureen Stark; Andrew A Kramer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Cheryl R Dennison; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Weiwei Wang; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.598
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: Deborah B Diercks; Matthew T Roe; Anita Y Chen; W Franklin Peacock; J Douglas Kirk; Charles V Pollack; W Brian Gibler; Sidney C Smith; Magnus Ohman; Eric D Peterson Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2007-06-20 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Donald B Chalfin; Stephen Trzeciak; Antonios Likourezos; Brigitte M Baumann; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Meagan A Bechel; Adam R Pah; Hanyu Shi; Sanjay Mehrotra; Stephen D Persell; Shayna Weiner; Richard G Wunderink; Luís A Nunes Amaral; Curtis H Weiss Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel L Theodoro; Niraj Vyas; Enyo Ablordeppey; Brian Bausano; Stephanie Charshafian; Phillip Asaro; Richard T Griffey Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Carrie E Harvey; Nathan L Haas; Chiu-Mei Chen; James A Cranford; Joseph A Hamera; Renee A Havey; Ryan E Tsuchida; Benjamin S Bassin Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Jose Victor Jimenez; Antonio Olivas-Martinez; Fausto Alfredo Rios-Olais; Frida Ayala-Aguillón; Fernando Gil-López; Mario Andrés de Jesús Leal-Villarreal; Juan José Rodríguez-Crespo; Juan C Jasso-Molina; Linda Enamorado-Cerna; Francisco Eduardo Dardón-Fierro; Bernardo A Martínez-Guerra; Carla Marina Román-Montes; Pedro E Alvarado-Avila; Noé Alonso Juárez-Meneses; Luis Alberto Morales-Paredes; Adriana Chávez-Suárez; Irving Rene Gutierrez-Espinoza; María Paula Najera-Ortíz; Marina Martínez-Becerril; María Fernanda Gonzalez-Lara; Alfredo Ponce de León-Garduño; José Ángel Baltazar-Torres; Eduardo Rivero-Sigarroa; Guillermo Dominguez-Cherit; Robert C Hyzy; David Kershenobich; José Sifuentes-Osornio Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-03-28
Authors: Neha N Goel; Matthew S Durst; Carmen Vargas-Torres; Lynne D Richardson; Kusum S Mathews Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.510