Literature DB >> 32095850

Defining patient-ventilator asynchrony severity according to recurrence.

Kay Choong See1,2, Juliet Sahagun3, Juvel Taculod3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32095850      PMCID: PMC7223983          DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-05974-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


× No keyword cloud information.
Dear Editor, Patient–ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a mismatched interaction between the patient’s needs and the ventilator-delivered breath. Types of PVA include trigger asynchrony (problem with mechanical inspiration), flow asynchrony (problem with inspiratory flow delivery) and cycling-off asynchrony (problem with timing of mechanical expiration). Almost all mechanically ventilated patients experience PVA [1], though poor clinical outcomes have only been associated with severe PVA. Some authors define severe PVA using proportion (≥ 10% of breaths are asynchronous) [2], while others use clustering of PVA events [3]. However, these definitions do not allow ready selection of patients for personalized treatment. We therefore propose defining PVA severity based on recurrence and explored the association of recurrent PVA with clinical outcomes. We studied patients who were intubated in the emergency department and directly admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU), from February 2017 to July 2017 (Figure E1, online ESM). Nurses titrated analgesia to achieve a Critical‐Care Pain Observation Tool score of 0–2 and sedation to achieve a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score − 2 to 0. Respiratory therapists also implemented a PVA protocol (reflecting our usual practice) for all mechanically ventilated patients upon ICU admission and twice daily (7 am, 7 pm), which involved bedside observation and management of PVA events for at least 2 min each time (Table E1, online ESM). During each PVA check, PVA was noted as a dichotomy (present versus absent) and was coded as present if the sum of asynchronous breaths exceeded 2 over 120 s. Recurrent asynchrony is defined as two or more PVA checks at two different times where asynchrony was coded as present. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of nonrecurrent and recurrent asynchrony with ICU/hospital mortality, adjusting for any factors that were statistically significant on univariate analysis. One hundred twenty patients were studied (age 64.8 ± 12.5 years, 45/37.5% female, APACHE II score 26.7 ± 8.1, 116/96.7% on volume assist control initially); 1635 episodes of PVA checks were performed for 120 patients (median seven checks per patient, interquartile range 3–18.5), of whom 35 (29.2% of 120 patients) experienced 110 episodes of PVA. The most common PVA was double triggering (64 episodes/3.9%), and the most common actions taken were to increase inspiratory flow, tidal volume or sedation (35–38 times, respectively) (Tables E2 and E3, online ESM). Presence of ARDS, use of nonvolume assist-control ventilation mode and use of dexmedetomidine were associated with asynchrony, though ventilation mode was only associated with nonrecurrent asynchrony. Recurrent asynchrony, but not nonrecurrent asynchrony, was associated with increased ICU and hospital mortality (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without PVA

Patient characteristics and outcomesPatients without PVAPatients with nonrecurrent PVAPatients with recurrent PVA
Number of patients851817
Median number of asynchrony episodesNA13
 IQRNANA2–5
 RangeNANA2–21
 Age (years)63.8 ± 13.466.5 ± 10.367.7 ± 9.1
 Female (%)33 (38.8)7 (38.9)5 (29.4)
 APACHE II score26.1 ± 8.627.2 ± 7.429.1 ± 6.4
 ARDS (%)24 (28.2)6 (33.3)10 (58.8)*
 Height (m)1.6 ± 0.111.57 ± 0.11.61 ± 0.11
 Weight (kg)63.5 ± 17.361.2 ± 13.864.8 ± 17.5
Primary diagnosis (%)
 Pneumonia25 (29.4)7 (38.9)9 (52.9)
 Other sepsis15 (17.7)3 (16.7)3 (17.7)
 COPD3 (3.5)0 (0)0 (0)
 Asthma3 (3.5)1 (5.6)1 (5.9)
 Stroke8 (9.4)3 (16.7)2 (11.8)
 Othera31 (36.5)4 (22.2)2 (11.8)
Comorbidity (%)
 Diabetes mellitus36 (42.4)7 (38.9)4 (23.5)
 Hypertension48 (56.5)9 (50)11 (64.7)
 Ischemic heart disease18 (21.2)4 (22.2)3 (17.7)
 Chronic heart failure3 (3.5)1 (5.6)0 (0)
 Asthma7 (8.2)0 (0)2 (11.8)
 COPD4 (4.7)1 (5.6)0 (0)
 Chronic kidney disease17 (20)1 (5.6)3 (17.7)
 Chronic liver disease15 (17.7)3 (16.7)3 (17.7)
 Stroke3 (3.5)1 (5.6)0 (0)
 Cancer13 (15.3)2 (11.1)4 (23.5)
ICU admission parameters
 Temperature (Celsius)36.9 ± 1.236.7 ± 1.336.8 ± 1
 Heart rate (beats/min)99 ± 26105 ± 27107 ± 20
 MAP (mmHg)94 ± 2391 ± 2497 ± 17
 Respiratory rate (/min)24 ± 625 ± 624 ± 6
ICU admission ABG
 pH7.33 ± 0.157.31 ± 0.187.36 ± 0.14
 pCO2 (mmHg)42.0 ± 19.234.0 ± 8.646.4 ± 23.9
 Bicarbonate (mmol/L)20.8 ± 6.118.8 ± 7.323.5 ± 4.9
Ventilation mode on ICU admission (%)
 Volume assist control84 (98.8)16 (88.9)*16 (94.1)
 Pressure assist control0 (0)2 (11.1)1 (5.9)
 Pressure support1 (1.2)0 (0)0 (0)
Ventilation parameters on ICU admissionbNeNeNe
 FIO20.68 ± 0.16850.74 ± 0.12180.69 ± 0.217
 PEEP (cmH2O)5.8 ± 1.7855.6 ± 1.6186.2 ± 2.217
 Tidal volume (ml/kg IBW)7.2 ± 1.7737.9 ± 2147 ± 0.812
 Driving pressure (cmH2O)11.7 ± 4.75912.7 ± 5.11311.1 ± 5.810
Analgesia/sedation usec
 Fentanyl (%)78 (91.8)17 (94.4)17 (100)
 Propofol (%)75 (88.2)18 (100)17 (100)
 Midazolam (%)5 (5.9)1 (5.6)1 (5.9)
 Dexmedetomidine (%)9 (10.6)2 (11.1)9 (52.9)*
Median fluid balance at 24 h after ICU admission (IQR) (ml)669 (105–1600)1415 (503–2300)650 (305–1333)
Vasopressor use on ICU admission (%)36 (42.4)11 (61.1)8 (47.1)
Median ventilator-free days through day 28 (IQR)25 (23–26)23.5 (21–25)*18 (10–23)*
Median sedation-free days through day 28 (IQR)26 (25–27)25.5 (24–27)22 (18–26)*
Median ICU LOS (IQR)6 (4–9)7.5 (4–11)12 (7–18)*
Median hospital LOS (IQR)14 (8–31)12.5 (8–35)*17 (12–28)
ICU mortality (%)10 (11.8)5 (27.8)7 (41.2)*
Hospital mortality (%)12 (14.1)5 (27.8)7 (41.2)*
ICU mortality (OR, 95% CI)
 UnadjustedReference2.88 (0.85–9.81)5.25 (1.62–16.91)
 AdjusteddReference2.51 (0.71–8.93)4.35 (1.17–16.24)
Hospital mortality (OR, 95% CI)
 UnadjustedReference2.34 (0.71–7.76)4.26 (1.36–13.35)
 AdjusteddReference2.07 (0.6–7.17)3.81 (1.05–13.82)

ABG, arterial blood gas; APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; BP, blood pressure; CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and IBW, IBW: ideal body weight. For males, IBW = 50 kg + 2.3 kg for each increment of 2.54 cm (1 inch) in length over 152.4 cm (5 feet). For females, IBW = 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg for each increment of 2.54 cm (1 inch) in length over 152.4 cm (5 feet); ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length-of-stay; OR, odds ratio; NA, not applicable; and PVA, patient–ventilator asynchrony

*P < 0.05, compared to patients without PVA

aIncludes myocardial infarction, bleeding gastrointestinal tract, status epilepticus, drug overdose, pulmonary embolism, diabetic ketoacidosis

bDone immediately after first application of the synchrony protocol

cMedication utilization over the course of each patient’s ICU stay. A patient could be on more than one of these medications

dAdjusted for the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, use of volume assist-control mode of ventilation and use of dexmedetomidine

eDiscrepancy in numbers between FIO2 and PEEP vs. tidal volume was because the tidal volume values were not recorded on admission for some patients. Discrepancy in numbers between FIO2 and PEEP vs. driving pressure was because plateau pressure was not measured on admission for some patients

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without PVA ABG, arterial blood gas; APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; BP, blood pressure; CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and IBW, IBW: ideal body weight. For males, IBW = 50 kg + 2.3 kg for each increment of 2.54 cm (1 inch) in length over 152.4 cm (5 feet). For females, IBW = 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg for each increment of 2.54 cm (1 inch) in length over 152.4 cm (5 feet); ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length-of-stay; OR, odds ratio; NA, not applicable; and PVA, patient–ventilator asynchrony *P < 0.05, compared to patients without PVA aIncludes myocardial infarction, bleeding gastrointestinal tract, status epilepticus, drug overdose, pulmonary embolism, diabetic ketoacidosis bDone immediately after first application of the synchrony protocol cMedication utilization over the course of each patient’s ICU stay. A patient could be on more than one of these medications dAdjusted for the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, use of volume assist-control mode of ventilation and use of dexmedetomidine eDiscrepancy in numbers between FIO2 and PEEP vs. tidal volume was because the tidal volume values were not recorded on admission for some patients. Discrepancy in numbers between FIO2 and PEEP vs. driving pressure was because plateau pressure was not measured on admission for some patients The association of asynchrony recurrence with mortality suggests that it may be used to identify severe asynchrony. Using PVA recurrence as a severity criterion has several advantages compared to proportion or clustering of PVA events: It avoids the need for continuous monitoring, it can be done using simple bedside observation, and it can be applied prospectively to select patients for further treatment, e.g., neuromuscular blockade [4, 5]. Nonetheless, given our single-center design, our proposed concept of recurrent asynchrony as a severity marker for PVA requires broader validation. Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 61 kb)
  5 in total

1.  Asynchronies during mechanical ventilation are associated with mortality.

Authors:  Lluís Blanch; Ana Villagra; Bernat Sales; Jaume Montanya; Umberto Lucangelo; Manel Luján; Oscar García-Esquirol; Encarna Chacón; Anna Estruga; Joan C Oliva; Alberto Hernández-Abadia; Guillermo M Albaiceta; Enrique Fernández-Mondejar; Rafael Fernández; Josefina Lopez-Aguilar; Jesús Villar; Gastón Murias; Robert M Kacmarek
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Arnaud W Thille; Pablo Rodriguez; Belen Cabello; François Lellouche; Laurent Brochard
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Early Neuromuscular Blockade in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Authors:  Marc Moss; David T Huang; Roy G Brower; Niall D Ferguson; Adit A Ginde; M N Gong; Colin K Grissom; Stephanie Gundel; Douglas Hayden; R Duncan Hite; Peter C Hou; Catherine L Hough; Theodore J Iwashyna; Akram Khan; Kathleen D Liu; Daniel Talmor; B Taylor Thompson; Christine A Ulysse; Donald M Yealy; Derek C Angus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-05-19       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Clusters of ineffective efforts during mechanical ventilation: impact on outcome.

Authors:  Katerina Vaporidi; Dimitris Babalis; Achilleas Chytas; Emmanuel Lilitsis; Eumorfia Kondili; Vasilis Amargianitakis; Ioanna Chouvarda; Nicos Maglaveras; Dimitris Georgopoulos
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Laurent Papazian; Jean-Marie Forel; Arnaud Gacouin; Christine Penot-Ragon; Gilles Perrin; Anderson Loundou; Samir Jaber; Jean-Michel Arnal; Didier Perez; Jean-Marie Seghboyan; Jean-Michel Constantin; Pierre Courant; Jean-Yves Lefrant; Claude Guérin; Gwenaël Prat; Sophie Morange; Antoine Roch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Risk Factors for Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes: Analytics Based on Deep Learning Algorithm.

Authors:  Huiqing Ge; Kailiang Duan; Jimei Wang; Liuqing Jiang; Lingwei Zhang; Yuhan Zhou; Luping Fang; Leo M A Heunks; Qing Pan; Zhongheng Zhang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-11-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.