Briana Short1, Alexis Serra2, Abdul Tariq3, Vivek Moitra4, Daniel Brodie2, Sapana Patel5, Matthew R Baldwin2, Natalie H Yip2. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, United States of America. Electronic address: bs2886@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, United States of America. 3. The Value Institute at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, United States of America. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, United States of America. 5. The New York State Psychiatric Institute, Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, New York, NY, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY, United States of America.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lung protective ventilation (LPV), defined as a tidal volume (Vt) ≤8 cc/kg of predicted body weight, reduces ventilator-induced lung injury but is applied inconsistently. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-experimental, cohort study of adults mechanically ventilated admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in the year before, year after, and second year after implementation of an electronic medical record based LPV order, and a cross-sectional qualitative study of ICU providers regarding their perceptions of the order. We applied the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the implementation. RESULTS: There were 1405, 1424, and 1342 in the control, adoption, and maintenance cohorts, representing 95% of mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients. The overall prevalence of LPV increased from 65% to 73% (p < 0.001, adjusted-OR for LPV adherence: 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), but LPV adherence in women was approximately 30% worse than in men (women: 44% to 56% [p < 0.001],men: 79% to 86% [p < 0.001]). ICU providers noted difficulty obtaining an accurate height measurement and mistrust of the Vt calculation as barriers to implementation. LPV adherence increased further in the second year post implementation. CONCLUSION: We designed and implemented an LPV order that sustainably improved LPV adherence across diverse ICUs.
PURPOSE: Lung protective ventilation (LPV), defined as a tidal volume (Vt) ≤8 cc/kg of predicted body weight, reduces ventilator-induced lung injury but is applied inconsistently. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-experimental, cohort study of adults mechanically ventilated admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in the year before, year after, and second year after implementation of an electronic medical record based LPV order, and a cross-sectional qualitative study of ICU providers regarding their perceptions of the order. We applied the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the implementation. RESULTS: There were 1405, 1424, and 1342 in the control, adoption, and maintenance cohorts, representing 95% of mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients. The overall prevalence of LPV increased from 65% to 73% (p < 0.001, adjusted-OR for LPV adherence: 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), but LPV adherence in women was approximately 30% worse than in men (women: 44% to 56% [p < 0.001],men: 79% to 86% [p < 0.001]). ICU providers noted difficulty obtaining an accurate height measurement and mistrust of the Vt calculation as barriers to implementation. LPV adherence increased further in the second year post implementation. CONCLUSION: We designed and implemented an LPV order that sustainably improved LPV adherence across diverse ICUs.
Authors: Giacomo Bellani; John G Laffey; Tài Pham; Eddy Fan; Laurent Brochard; Andres Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Frank van Haren; Anders Larsson; Daniel F McAuley; Marco Ranieri; Gordon Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Hermann Wrigge; Arthur S Slutsky; Antonio Pesenti Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J L Vincent; R Moreno; J Takala; S Willatts; A De Mendonça; H Bruining; C K Reinhart; P M Suter; L G Thijs Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Curtis H Weiss; David W Baker; Katrina Tulas; Shayna Weiner; Meagan Bechel; Alfred Rademaker; Angela Fought; Richard G Wunderink; Stephen D Persell Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-11
Authors: Ixchel Castellanos; Marcus Martin; Stefan Kraus; Thomas Bürkle; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Jürgen Schüttler; Dennis Toddenroth Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.425
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: Ravi Kalhan; Mark Mikkelsen; Pali Dedhiya; Jason Christie; Christine Gaughan; Paul N Lanken; Barbara Finkel; Robert Gallop; Barry D Fuchs Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Saeid Eslami; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Marcus J Schultz; Evert de Jonge; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Gordon D Rubenfeld; Claudette Cooper; Greg Carter; B Taylor Thompson; Leonard D Hudson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.598
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