The COVID–19 pandemic led to local oxygen shortages worldwide. To gain a better understanding of oxygen consumption with different respiratory supportive therapies, we conducted an international multicenter observational study to determine the precise amount of oxygen consumption with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and with mechanical ventilation. A retrospective observational study was conducted in three intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands and Spain. Patients were classified as HFNO patients or ventilated patients, according to the mode of oxygen supplementation with which a patient started. The primary endpoint was actual oxygen consumption; secondary endpoints were hourly and total oxygen consumption during the first two full calendar days. Of 275 patients, 147 started with HFNO and 128 with mechanical ventilation. Actual oxygen use was 4.9-fold higher in patients who started with HFNO than in patients who started with ventilation (median 14.2 [8.4–18.4] versus 2.9 [1.8–4.1] L/minute; mean difference 5 11.3 [95% CI 11.0–11.6] L/minute; P, 0.01). Hourly and total oxygen consumption were 4.8-fold (P, 0.01) and 4.8-fold (P, 0.01) higher. Actual oxygen consumption, hourly oxygen consumption, and total oxygen consumption are substantially higher in patients that start with HFNO compared with patients that start with mechanical ventilation. This information may help hospitals and ICUs predicting oxygen needs during high-demand periods and could guide decisions regarding the source of distribution of medical oxygen.
MULTIFILE
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.
DOCUMENT
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is traditionally used in the neuromuscular population. There is growing interest of MI-E use in invasively ventilated critically ill adults. We aimed to map current evidence on MI-E use in invasively ventilated critically ill adults. Two authors independently searched electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL via the Ovid platform; PROSPERO; Cochrane Library; ISI Web of Science; and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between January 1990–April 2021. Inclusion criteria were (1) adult critically ill invasively ventilated subjects, (2) use of MI-E, (3) study design with original data, and (4) published from 1990 onward. Data were extracted by 2 authors independently using a bespoke extraction form. We used Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise risk of bias. Theoretical Domains Framework was used to interpret qualitative data. Of 3,090 citations identified, 28 citations were taken forward for data extraction. Main indications for MI-E use during invasive ventilation were presence of secretions and mucus plugging (13/28, 46%). Perceived contraindications related to use of high levels of positive pressure (18/28, 68%). Protocolized MI-E settings with a pressure of ±40 cm H2O were most commonly used, with detail on timing, flow, and frequency of prescription infrequently reported. Various outcomes were re-intubation rate, wet sputum weight, and pulmonary mechanics. Only 3 studies reported the occurrence of adverse events. From qualitative data, the main barrier to MI-E use in this subject group was lack of knowledge and skills. We concluded that there is little consistency in how MI-E is used and reported, and therefore, recommendations about best practices are not possible.
DOCUMENT
