Mechanical Ventilation, Past, Present, and Future.

Mechanical ventilation (MV) has played a crucial role in the medical field, particularly in anesthesia and in critical care medicine (CCM) settings. MV has evolved significantly since its inception over 70 years ago and the future promises even more advanced technology. In the past, ventilation was provided manually, intermittently, and it was primarily used for resuscitation or as a last resort for patients with severe respiratory or cardiovascular failure. The earliest MV machines for prolonged ventilatory support and oxygenation were large and cumbersome. They required a significant amount of skills and expertise to operate. These early devices had limited capabilities, battery, power, safety features, alarms, and therefore these often caused harm to patients. Moreover, the physiology of MV was modified when mechanical ventilators moved from negative pressure to positive pressure mechanisms. Monitoring systems were also very limited and therefore the risks related to MV support were difficult to quantify, predict and timely detect for individual patients who were necessarily young with few comorbidities. Technology and devices designed to use tracheostomies versus endotracheal intubation evolved in the last century too and these are currently much more reliable. In the present, positive pressure MV is more sophisticated and widely used for extensive period of time. Modern ventilators use mostly positive pressure systems and are much smaller, more portable than their predecessors, and they are much easier to operate. They can also be programmed to provide different levels of support based on evolving physiological concepts allowing lung-protective ventilation. Monitoring systems are more sophisticated and knowledge related to the physiology of MV is improved. Patients are also more complex and elderly compared to the past. MV experts are informed about risks related to prolonged or aggressive ventilation modalities and settings. One of the most significant advances in MV has been protective lung ventilation, diaphragm protective ventilation including noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Health care professionals are familiar with the use of MV and in many countries, respiratory therapists have been trained for the exclusive purpose of providing safe and professional respiratory support to critically ill patients. Analgo-sedation drugs and techniques are improved, and more sedative drugs are available and this has an impact on recovery, weaning, and overall patients' outcome. Looking toward the future, MV is likely to continue to evolve and improve alongside monitoring techniques and sedatives. There is increasing precision in monitoring global "patient-ventilator" interactions: structure and analysis (asynchrony, desynchrony, etc). One area of development is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in ventilator technology. AI can be used to monitor patients in real-time, and it can predict when a patient is likely to experience respiratory distress. This allows medical professionals to intervene before a crisis occurs, improving patient outcomes and reducing the need for emergency intervention. This specific area of development is intended as "personalized ventilation." It involves tailoring the ventilator settings to the individual patient, based on their physiology and the specific condition they are being treated for. This approach has the potential to improve patient outcomes by optimizing ventilation and reducing the risk of harm. In conclusion, MV has come a long way since its inception, and it continues to play a critical role in anesthesia and in CCM settings. Advances in technology have made MV safer, more effective, affordable, and more widely available. As technology continues to improve, more advanced and personalized MV will become available, leading to better patients' outcomes and quality of life for those in need.

Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in South African PICUs: A Multisite Point-Prevalence Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (pARDS) and the characteristics of children with pARDS in South African PICUs. DESIGN: Observational multicenter, cross-sectional point-prevalence study. SETTING: Eight PICUs in four South African provinces. PATIENTS: All children beyond the neonatal period and under 18 years of age admitted to participating PICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical and demographic data were prospectively collected on a single day of each month, from February to July 2022, using a centralized database. Cases with or at risk of pARDS were identified using the 2015 Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference criteria. Prevalence was calculated as the number of children meeting pARDS criteria/the total number of children admitted to PICU at the same time points. Three hundred ten patients were present in the PICU on study days: 166 (53.5%) male, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 9.8 (3.1-32.9) months, and 195 (62.9%) invasively mechanically ventilated. Seventy-one (22.9%) patients were classified as being "at risk" of pARDS and 95 patients (prevalence 30.6%; 95% CI, 24.7-37.5%) fulfilled pARDS case criteria, with severity classified as mild (58.2%), moderate (25.3%), and severe (17.6%). Median (IQR) admission Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 risk of mortality in patients with and without pARDS was 5.6 (3.4-12.1) % versus 3.9 (1.0-8.2) % ( p = 0.002). Diagnostic categories differed between pARDS and non-pARDS groups ( p = 0.002), with no difference in age, sex, or presence of comorbidities. On multivariable logistic regression, increasing admission risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04; p = 0.04) and being admitted with a respiratory condition (aOR 2.64; 95% CI, 1.27-5.48; p = 0.01) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of having pARDS. CONCLUSIONS: The 30.6% prevalence of pARDS in South Africa is substantially higher than reports from other sociogeographical regions, highlighting the need for further research in this setting.

Pediatric Index of Mortality 3-An Evaluation of Function Among ICUs In South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 as mortality risk assessment model. DESIGN: This prospective study included all admissions 30 days to 18 years old for 12 months during 2016 and 2017. Data gathered included the following: age and gender, diagnosis and reason for PICU admission, data specific for the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 calculation, PICU outcomes (death or survival), and length of PICU stay. SETTING: Nine units that care for children within tertiary or quaternary academic hospitals in South Africa. PATIENTS: All admissions 30 days to 18 years old, excluding premature infants, children who died within 2 hours of admission, or children transferred to other PICUs, and those older than 18 years old. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 3,681 admissions of which 2,253 (61.3%) were male. The median age was 18 months (interquartile range, 6-59.5 mo). There were 354 deaths (9.6%). The Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 predicted 277.47 deaths (7.5%). The overall standardized mortality ratio was 1.28. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (95% CI 0.79-0.83). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was 174.4 (p < 0.001). Standardized mortality ratio for all age groups was greater than 1. Standardized mortality ratio for diagnostic subgroups was mostly greater than 1 except for those whose reason for PICU admission was classified as accident, toxin and envenomation, and metabolic which had an standardized mortality ratio less than 1. There were similar proportions of respiratory patients, but significantly greater proportions of neurologic and cardiac (including postoperative) patients in the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 derivation cohort than the South African cohort. In contrast, the South African cohort contained a significantly greater proportion of miscellaneous (including injury/accident victims) and postoperative noncardiac patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 discrimination between death and survival among South African units was good. Case-mix differences between these units and the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 derivation cohort may partly explain the poor calibration. We need to recalibrate Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 to the local setting.