Zoekresultaten

Effects of closed loop ventilation on ventilator settings, patient outcomes and ICU staff workloads - A systematic review

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.

Airway care interventions and prone positioning in critically ill patients

Airway Care Interventions for Invasively Ventilated Critically Ill Adults-A Dutch National Survey

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.

Feasibility of muscle activity assessment with surface electromyography during bed cycling exercise in intensive care unit patients

Feasibility of inspiratory muscle training for patients with persistent dyspnea after COVID-19 infection

ObjectiveThis study investigates the feasibility of delivering inspiratory muscle training as part of the physical therapy treatment for patients with post-COVID dyspnoea.DesignMixed-methods pilot study.Subjects/patientsPatients with complaints of dyspnoea after COVID-19 infection and their physical therapists.MethodsThe Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers conducted this study. Participants performed daily inspiratory muscle training at home for 6 weeks, consisting of 30 repetitions against a pre-set resistance. The primary outcome was feasibility assessed as acceptability, safety, adherence and patient- and professional experience obtained through diaries and semi-structured interviews. The secondary outcome was maximal inspiratory pressure.ResultsSixteen patients participated. Nine patients and 2 physical therapists partook in semi-structured interviews. Two patients dropped out before initiating the training. Adherence was 73.7%, and no adverse events occurred. Protocol deviations occurred in 29.7% of the sessions. Maximal inspiratory pressure changed from 84.7% of predicted at baseline to 111.3% at follow-up. Qualitative analysis identified barriers to training: ‘Getting acquainted with the training material’ and ‘Finding the right schedule’. Facilitators were: ‘Support from physical therapists’ and ‘Experiencing improvements’.ConclusionDelivering inspiratory muscle training to patients with post-COVID dyspnoea seems feasible. Patients valued the simplicity of the intervention and reported perceived improvements. However, the intervention should be carefully supervised, and training parameters adjusted to individual needs and capacity.

Conventional chest physical therapy for obstructive lung disease

Chest physical therapy (CPT) is a widely used intervention for patients with airway diseases. The main goal is to facilitate secretion transport and thereby decrease secretion retention in the airways. Historically, conventional CPT has consisted of a combination of forced expirations (directed cough or huff), postural drainage, percussion, and/or shaking. CPT improves mucus transport, but it is not entirely clear which groups of patients benefit from which CPT modalities. In general, the patients who benefit most from CPT are those with airways disease and objective signs of secretion retention (eg, persistent rhonchi or decreased breath sounds) or subjective signs of difficulty expectorating sputum, and with progression of disease that might be due to secretion retention (eg, recurrent exacerbations, infections, or a fast decline in pulmonary function). The most effective and important part of conventional CPT is directed cough. The other components of conventional CPT add little if any benefit and should not be used routinely. Alternative airway clearance modalities (eg, high-frequency chest wall compression, vibratory positive expiratory pressure, and exercise) are not proven to be more effective than conventional CPT and usually add little benefit to conventional CPT. Only if cough and huff are insufficiently effective should other CPT modalities be considered. The choice between the CPT alternatives mainly depends on patient preference and the individual patient's response to treatment.