BACKGROUNDLung protective ventilation is considered standard of care in the intensive care unit. However, modifying the ventilator settings can be challenging and is time consuming. Closed loop modes of ventilation are increasingly attractive for use in critically ill patients. With closed loop ventilation, settings that are typically managed by the ICU professionals are under control of the ventilator's algorithms.OBJECTIVESTo describe the effectiveness, safety, efficacy and workload with currently available closed loop ventilation modes.DESIGNSystematic review of randomised clinical trials.DATA SOURCESA comprehensive systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials search was performed in January 2023.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIARandomised clinical trials that compared closed loop ventilation with conventional ventilation modes and reported on effectiveness, safety, efficacy or workload.RESULTSThe search identified 51 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Closed loop ventilation, when compared with conventional ventilation, demonstrates enhanced management of crucial ventilator variables and parameters essential for lung protection across diverse patient cohorts. Adverse events were seldom reported. Several studies indicate potential improvements in patient outcomes with closed loop ventilation; however, it is worth noting that these studies might have been underpowered to conclusively demonstrate such benefits. Closed loop ventilation resulted in a reduction of various aspects associated with the workload of ICU professionals but there have been no studies that studied workload in sufficient detail.CONCLUSIONSClosed loop ventilation modes are at least as effective in choosing correct ventilator settings as ventilation performed by ICU professionals and have the potential to reduce the workload related to ventilation. Nevertheless, there is a lack of sufficient research to comprehensively assess the overall impact of these modes on patient outcomes, and on the workload of ICU staff.
Background: Ventilation management may differ between COVID–19 ARDS (COVID–ARDS) patients and patients with pre–COVID ARDS (CLASSIC–ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC–ARDS also exist in COVID–ARDS. Methods: Individual patient data analysis of COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID–19 pandemic and two pre–pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator–free days and alive (VFD–60) at day 60. Results: This analysis included 6702 COVID–ARDS patients and 1415 CLASSIC–ARDS patients. COVID–ARDS patients received lower median VT (6.6 [6.0 to 7.4] vs 7.3 [6.4 to 8.5] ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001) and higher median PEEP (12.0 [10.0 to 14.0] vs 8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001), at lower median ΔP (13.0 [10.0 to 15.0] vs 16.0 [IQR 12.0 to 20.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001) and higher median Crs (33.5 [26.6 to 42.1] vs 28.1 [21.6 to 38.4] mL/cm H2O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60–day mortality and less VFD–60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD–60, but only in COVID–ARDS patients. Conclusions: Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.
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.
