Michael C McCrory1,2, Alan G Woodruff1,2, Amit K Saha1, Joni K Evans3, Elizabeth E Halvorson2, Andora L Bass1,2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low tidal volume and adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) are evidence-based approaches for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (pARDS), however, data are limited regarding their use since pARDS guidelines were revised in 2015. OBJECTIVE: To identify prevalence of, and factors associated with, nonadherence to appropriate tidal volume and PEEP in children with pARDS. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of children 1 month to <18 years with pARDS who received invasive mechanical ventilation from 2016 to 2018 in a single pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). RESULTS: At 24 h after meeting pARDS criteria, 48/86 (56%) patients received tidal volume ≤8 ml/kg of ideal body weight and 45/86 (52%) received appropriate PEEP, with 22/86 (26%) receiving both. Among patients ≥2 years of age, a lower proportion of patients with overweight/obesity (9/25, 36%) had appropriate tidal volume versus those in the normal or underweight category (16/22, 73%, p = 0.02). When FIO2 was ≥50%, PEEP was appropriate in 19/60 (32%) cases versus 26/26 (100%) with FIO2 < 50% (p < 0.0001). pARDS was documented in the progress note in 7/86 (8%) patients at 24 h. Severity of pARDS, documentation in the progress note, and other clinical factors were not significantly associated with use of appropriate tidal volume and PEEP, however pARDS was documented more commonly in patients with severe pARDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a single PICU in the United States, children with pARDS did not receive appropriate tidal volume for ideal body weight nor PEEP. Targets for improving tidal volume and PEEP adherence may include overweight patients and those receiving FIO2 ≥ 50%, respectively.
BACKGROUND: Low tidal volume and adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) are evidence-based approaches for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (pARDS), however, data are limited regarding their use since pARDS guidelines were revised in 2015. OBJECTIVE: To identify prevalence of, and factors associated with, nonadherence to appropriate tidal volume and PEEP in children with pARDS. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of children 1 month to <18 years with pARDS who received invasive mechanical ventilation from 2016 to 2018 in a single pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). RESULTS: At 24 h after meeting pARDS criteria, 48/86 (56%) patients received tidal volume ≤8 ml/kg of ideal body weight and 45/86 (52%) received appropriate PEEP, with 22/86 (26%) receiving both. Among patients ≥2 years of age, a lower proportion of patients with overweight/obesity (9/25, 36%) had appropriate tidal volume versus those in the normal or underweight category (16/22, 73%, p = 0.02). When FIO2 was ≥50%, PEEP was appropriate in 19/60 (32%) cases versus 26/26 (100%) with FIO2 < 50% (p < 0.0001). pARDS was documented in the progress note in 7/86 (8%) patients at 24 h. Severity of pARDS, documentation in the progress note, and other clinical factors were not significantly associated with use of appropriate tidal volume and PEEP, however pARDS was documented more commonly in patients with severe pARDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a single PICU in the United States, children with pARDS did not receive appropriate tidal volume for ideal body weight nor PEEP. Targets for improving tidal volume and PEEP adherence may include overweight patients and those receiving FIO2 ≥ 50%, respectively.
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: 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: Shan L Ward; Carson M Quinn; Martina A Steurer; Kathleen D Liu; Heidi R Flori; Michael A Matthay Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Kaushik Parvathaneni; Nadir Yehya; Anoopindar K Bhalla; Neal J Thomas; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Nsikak J Umoh; Eddy Fan; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Jonathan E Sevransky; Cheryl R Dennison; Carl Shanholtz; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Simon Erickson; Andreas Schibler; Andrew Numa; Gabrielle Nuthall; Michael Yung; Elaine Pascoe; Barry Wilkins Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Katherine A Sward; Christopher J L Newth; Robinder G Khemani; Kent Page; Kathleen L Meert; Joseph A Carcillo; Thomas P Shanley; Frank W Moler; Murray M Pollack; Heidi J Dalton; David L Wessel; John T Berger; Robert A Berg; Rick E Harrison; Allan Doctor; J Michael Dean; Richard Holobkov; Tammara L Jenkins; Carol E Nicholson Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.624