Airway care interventions may prevent accumulation of airway secretions and promote their evacuation, but evidence is scarce. Interventions include heated humidification, nebulization of mucolytics and/or bronchodilators, manual hyperinflation and use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E). Our aim is to identify current airway care practices for invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. A self-administered web-based survey was sent to a single pre-appointed representative of all ICUs in the Netherlands. Response rate was 85% (72 ICUs). We found substantial heterogeneity in the intensity and combinations of airway care interventions used. Most (81%) ICUs reported using heated humidification as a routine prophylactic intervention. All (100%) responding ICUs used nebulized mucolytics and/or bronchodilators; however, only 43% ICUs reported nebulization as a routine prophylactic intervention. Most (81%) ICUs used manual hyperinflation, although only initiated with a clinical indication like difficult oxygenation. Few (22%) ICUs used MI-E for invasively ventilated patients. Use was always based on the indication of insufficient cough strength or as a continuation of home use. In the Netherlands, use of routine prophylactic airway care interventions is common despite evidence of no benefit. There is an urgent need for evidence of the benefit of these interventions to inform evidence-based guidelines.
Introduction: Few data described practicalities of using mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) for invasively ventilated ICU patients and evidence for benefit of their use is lacking.Aim and objective: To identify barriers and facilitators to use MI-E devices in invasively ventilated ICU patients, and to explore reasons for their use in various patient indications.Methods: Four focus group discussions; 3 national (Netherlands) and 1 with international representation, each with a purposeful interprofessional sample of a maximum 10 participants with experience in using MI-E in invasively ventilated ICU patients. We developed a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Theoretical Domain Framework. An observer was present in each session. Sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using content analysis.Results: Barriers for MI-E use were lack of evidence and lack of expertise in MI-E, as well as lack of device availability within the ICU. Facilitators were experience with MI-E and perceived clinical improvement in patients with MI-E use. Common reasons to start using MI-E were difficult weaning, recurrent atelectasis and pneumonia. Main contraindications were, bullous emphysema, ARDS, high PEEP, hemodynamic instability, recent pneumothorax. There was substantial variability on used technical settings of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients.Conclusions: Key barriers and facilitators to MI-E were lack of evidence, available expertise and perceived clinical improvement. Variability on technical settings likely reflect lack of evidence. Future studies should focus on settings, safety and feasibility of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients before studies on effect can be conducted.
LINK
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates the potential benefits of restricted fluid management in critically ill patients. Evidence lacks on the optimal fluid management strategy for invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesized that the cumulative fluid balance would affect the successful liberation of invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).METHODS: We analyzed data from the multicenter observational 'PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19 patients' study. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and ARDS who required invasive ventilation during the first 3 months of the international outbreak (March 1, 2020, to June 2020) across 22 hospitals in the Netherlands were included. The primary outcome was successful liberation of invasive ventilation, modeled as a function of day 3 cumulative fluid balance using Cox proportional hazards models, using the crude and the adjusted association. Sensitivity analyses without missing data and modeling ARDS severity were performed.RESULTS: Among 650 patients, three groups were identified. Patients in the higher, intermediate, and lower groups had a median cumulative fluid balance of 1.98 L (1.27-7.72 L), 0.78 L (0.26-1.27 L), and - 0.35 L (- 6.52-0.26 L), respectively. Higher day 3 cumulative fluid balance was significantly associated with a lower probability of successful ventilation liberation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.95, P = 0.0047). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results.CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, a higher cumulative fluid balance was associated with a longer ventilation duration, indicating that restricted fluid management in these patients may be beneficial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04346342 ); Date of registration: April 15, 2020.
