RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lung 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. OBJECTIVES: To describe the effectiveness, safety, efficacy and workload with currently available closed loop ventilation modes. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials search was performed in January 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials that compared closed loop ventilation with conventional ventilation modes and reported on effectiveness, safety, efficacy or workload. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Closed 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.
Assuntos
Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Respiração Artificial , Ventiladores Mecânicos , Carga de Trabalho , Humanos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Respiração Artificial/instrumentação , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
RATIONALE: The positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategy in patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains debated. Most studies originate from the initial waves of the pandemic. Here we aimed to assess the impact of high PEEP/low FiO2 ventilation on outcomes during the second wave in the Netherlands. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients during the second wave. Patients were categorized based on whether they received high PEEP or low PEEP ventilation according to the ARDS Network tables. The primary outcome was ICU mortality, and secondary outcomes included hospital and 90-day mortality, duration of ventilation and length of stay, and the occurrence of kidney injury. Propensity matching was performed to correct for factors with a known relationship to ICU mortality. RESULTS: This analysis included 790 COVID-ARDS patients. At ICU discharge, 32 (22.5%) out of 142 high PEEP patients and 254 (39.2%) out of 848 low PEEP patients had died (HR 0.66 [0.46-0.96]; P = 0.03). High PEEP was linked to improved secondary outcomes. Matched analysis did not change findings. CONCLUSIONS: High PEEP ventilation was associated with improved ICU survival in patients with COVID-ARDS.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Respiração com Pressão Positiva , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/terapia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos/epidemiologia , Idoso , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/mortalidade , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , SARS-CoV-2 , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
Subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum are well-known complications of invasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We determined the incidences of air leaks that were visible on available chest images in a cohort of critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in a single-center cohort in the Netherlands. A total of 712 chest images from 154 patients were re-evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of independent assessors; there was a median of three (2-5) chest radiographs and a median of one (1-2) chest CT scans per patient. The incidences of subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothoraxes and pneumomediastinum present in 13 patients (8.4%) were 4.5%, 4.5%, and 3.9%. The median first day of the presence of an air leak was 18 (2-21) days after arrival in the ICU and 18 (9-22)days after the start of invasive ventilation. We conclude that the incidence of air leaks was high in this cohort of COVID-19 patients, but it was fairly comparable with what was previously reported in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the pre-COVID-19 era.