Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non-invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
Patients who are critically ill and receiving invasivemechanical ventilation are at increased risk for accumula-tion of secretions in the lower airways. Such accumula-tion of airway mucus can induce atelectasis and contributeto ventilator-associated pneumonia. Preventive airwaycare interventions, including humidification, endotrachealsuctioning, and pharmacologic interventions, are thereforefrequently initiated during invasive ventilation. However,evidence for the efficacy of these interventions is scarce,and the absence of guidelines enhances variation in indica-tions for their use. Currently, the choice and timing of interventions aremainly driven by clinical assessment of mucus viscosity based on a mucus classification scale or preference by thetreating physician. Alternatively, airway mucus proper-ties can be measured through rheology, a more objectiveparameter, which characterizes its biophysical properties(eg, viscoelasticity). Previously, studies reported that rhe-ology of airway secretions may help classify chronic muco-obstructive respiratory diseases and serve as a marker ofdisease progression. In this study, we tested the hypoth-esis that airway mucus viscoelastic properties, as measuredby rheology in patients who are critically ill and receivinginvasive mechanical ventilation, correlates with its clinicalmucus classification score.
DOCUMENT
