Influence of Critical Care Transport Ventilator Management on Intensive Care Unit Care.

OBJECTIVE: High tidal volume ventilation is associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. Early introduction of lung protective ventilation improves patient outcomes. This study describes ventilator management during critical care transport and the association between transport ventilator settings and ventilator settings in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of mechanically ventilated adult patients transported to an academic medical center via a critical care transport program between January 2018 and April 2019. Ventilator settings during transport were compared with the initial and 6- and 12-hour postadmission ventilator settings. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients were identified; 114 (30%) received tidal volumes > 8 mL/kg predicted body weight at the time of transfer. The transport handoff tidal volume strongly correlated with the ICU tidal volume (Pearson r = 0.7). Patients receiving high tidal volumes during transport were more likely to receive high tidal volumes initially upon transfer (relative risk [RR] = 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-6.5) and at 6 and 12 hours after admission (RR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8 and RR = 2.7; 95% CI, 1.7-4.3, respectively). CONCLUSION: Exposure to high tidal volumes during transport is associated with high tidal volume ventilation in the ICU, even up to 12 hours after admission. This study identifies opportunities for improving patient care through the application of lung protective ventilation strategies during transport.

Nonmechanical Revision Indications Portend Repeat Limb-Salvage Failure Following Total Femoral Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There is scant evidence to guide decision-making for patients considering total femoral replacement (TFR). We aimed to identify the indication, patient, disease, and surgical technique-related factors associated with failure. We hypothesized that failure occurs more frequently in the setting of revision surgical procedures, with infection as the predominant failure mode. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving total femoral endoprostheses for oncological and revision arthroplasty indications; 166 patients met these criteria. Our primary independent variable of interest was TFR for a revision indication (arthroplasty or limb salvage); the primary outcome was failure. Analyses were performed for patient variables (age, sex, diagnosis group, indication), implant variables (model, decade, length, materials), and treatment variables. We analyzed TFR failures with respect to patient factors, operative technique, and time to failure. We conducted bivariate logistic regressions predicting failure and used a multivariate model containing variables showing bivariate associations with failure. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (27%) had treatment failure. Failure occurred in 24 (23%) of 105 primary TFRs and in 20 (33%) of 61 revision TFRs; the difference was not significant (p = 0.134) in bivariate analysis but was significant (p = 0.044) in multivariate analysis. The mean age at the time of TFR was 37 years in the primary group and 51 years in the revision group (p = 0.0006). Of the patients who had mechanical failure, none had reoccurrence of their original failure mode, whereas all 8 patients from the nonmechanical cohort had reoccurrence of the original failure mode; this difference was significant (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: TFR has a high failure rate and a propensity for deep infection, especially in the setting of revision indications and prior infection. All failed TFRs performed for revision indications for infection or local recurrence failed by reoccurrence of the original failure mode and resulted in amputation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.