The aim of this analysis was to compare ventilation management and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between the first and second wave in the Netherlands. This is a post hoc analysis of two nationwide observational COVID-19 studies conducted in quick succession. The primary endpoint was ventilation management. Secondary endpoints were tracheostomy use, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality. We used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors. This analysis included 1122 patients from the first and 568 patients from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were sicker, had more comorbidities, and had worse oxygenation parameters. They were ventilated with lower positive end-expiratory pressure and higher fraction inspired oxygen, had a lower oxygen saturation, received neuromuscular blockade more often, and were less often tracheostomized. Duration of ventilation was shorter, but mortality rates were similar. After matching, the fraction of inspired oxygen was lower in the second wave. In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, aspects of respiratory care and outcomes rapidly changed over the successive waves.
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
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation (MI-E) is used as an airway clearance intervention in primary care (home ventilation), long-term care (prolonged rehabilitation after intensive care, neuromuscular diseases, and spinal cord injury), and increasingly in acute care in intensive care units (ICU).AIM: We sought to develop in-depth understanding of factors influencing decision-making processes of health care professionals regarding initiation, escalation, de-escalation, and discontinuation of MI-E for invasively ventilated patients including perceived barriers and facilitators to use.METHODS: We conducted focus groups (3 in the Netherlands; 1 with participants from four European countries) with clinicians representing the ICU interprofessional team and with variable experience of MI-E. The semi-structured interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Two researchers independently coded data for directed content analysis using codes developed from the TDF.RESULTS: A purposive sample of 35 health care professionals participated. Experience varied from infrequent to several years of frequent MI-E use in different patient populations. We identified four main themes: (1) knowledge; (2) beliefs; (3) clinical decision-making; and (4) future adoption.CONCLUSION: Interprofessional knowledge and expertise of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients is limited due to minimal available evidence and adoption. Participants believed MI-E a potentially useful intervention for airway clearance and inclusion in weaning protocols when more evidence is available.RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This focus group study provides an overview of current practice, knowledge and expertise, and barriers and facilitators to using MI-E in mechanically ventilated patients. From these data, it is evident there is a need to develop further clinical expertise and evidence of efficacy to further understand the role of MI-E as an airway clearance technique for ventilated patients.
