Shannon M Fernando1, Eddy Fan2, Bram Rochwerg3, Karen E A Burns4, Laurent J Brochard5, Deborah J Cook3, Allan J Walkey6, Niall D Ferguson7, Catherine L Hough8, Daniel Brodie9, Andrew J E Seely10, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy11, Jeffrey J Perry11, Alexandre Tran12, Peter Tanuseputro13, Kwadwo Kyeremanteng14. 1. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: sfernando@qmed.ca. 2. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Pulmonary Center, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 7. Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 9. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Center for Acute Respiratory Failure, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 10. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 11. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 12. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 13. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Bruyére Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Division of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 14. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Division of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Institut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation is often initiated in the ED, and mechanically ventilated patients may be kept in the ED for hours before ICU transfer. Although lung-protective ventilation is beneficial, particularly in ARDS, it remains uncertain how often lung-protective tidal volumes are used in the ED, and whether lung-protective ventilation in this setting impacts patient outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between the use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED and outcomes among invasively ventilated patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis (2011-2017) of a prospective registry from eight EDs enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED was performed. Lung-protective ventilation was defined by use of tidal volumes ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of ARDS, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: The study included 4,174 patients, of whom 2,437 (58.4%) received lung-protective ventilation in the ED. Use of lung-protective ventilation was associated with decreased odds of hospital death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96) and development of ARDS (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92). Patients who received lung-protective ventilation in the ED had shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (4 vs 5 days; P < 0.01), shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 14 days; P < .001), and reduced total hospital costs (Can$44,348 vs Can$52,484 [US$34,153 vs US$40,418]; P = .03) compared with patients who received higher tidal volumes. INTERPRETATION: Use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED was associated with important patient- and system-centered outcomes, including lower hospital mortality, decreased incidence of ARDS, lower hospital length of stay, and decreased total costs. Protocol development promoting the regular use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED may be of value.
BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation is often initiated in the ED, and mechanically ventilated patients may be kept in the ED for hours before ICU transfer. Although lung-protective ventilation is beneficial, particularly in ARDS, it remains uncertain how often lung-protective tidal volumes are used in the ED, and whether lung-protective ventilation in this setting impacts patient outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between the use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED and outcomes among invasively ventilated patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis (2011-2017) of a prospective registry from eight EDs enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED was performed. Lung-protective ventilation was defined by use of tidal volumes ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of ARDS, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: The study included 4,174 patients, of whom 2,437 (58.4%) received lung-protective ventilation in the ED. Use of lung-protective ventilation was associated with decreased odds of hospital death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96) and development of ARDS (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92). Patients who received lung-protective ventilation in the ED had shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (4 vs 5 days; P < 0.01), shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 14 days; P < .001), and reduced total hospital costs (Can$44,348 vs Can$52,484 [US$34,153 vs US$40,418]; P = .03) compared with patients who received higher tidal volumes. INTERPRETATION: Use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED was associated with important patient- and system-centered outcomes, including lower hospital mortality, decreased incidence of ARDS, lower hospital length of stay, and decreased total costs. Protocol development promoting the regular use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED may be of value.
Authors: Crystal M Ives Tallman; Carrie E Harvey; Stephanie L Laurinec; Amanda C Melvin; Kimberly A Fecteau; James A Cranford; Nathan L Haas; Benjamin S Bassin Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-01-11
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