ABSTRACT
Introduction: Intravenous (IV) therapy is a crucial aspect of care for the critically ill patient. Barriers to IV infusion pumps in low-resource settings include high costs, lack of access to electricity, and insufficient technical support. Inaccuracy of traditional drop-counting practices places patients at risk. By conducting a comparative assessment of IV infusion methods, we analyzed the efficacy of different devices and identified one that most effectively bridges the gap between accuracy, cost, and electricity reliance in low-resource environments. Methods: In this prospective mixed methods study, nurses, residents, and medical students used drop counting, a manual flow regulator, an infusion pump, a DripAssist, and a DripAssist with manual flow regulator to collect normal saline at goal rates of 240, 120, and 60 mL/h. Participants' station setup time was recorded, and the amount of fluid collected in 10 min was recorded (in milliliters). Participants then filled out a post-trial survey to rate each method (on a scale of 1 to 5) in terms of understandability, time consumption, and operability. Cost-effectiveness for use in low-resource settings was also evaluated. Results: The manual flow regulator had the fastest setup time, was the most cost effective, and was rated as the least time consuming to use and the easiest to understand and operate. In contrast, the combination of the DripAssist and manual flow regulator was the most time consuming to use and the hardest to understand and operate. Conclusion: The manual flow regulator alone was the least time consuming and easiest to operate. The DripAssist/Manual flow regulator combination increases accuracy, but this combination was the most difficult to operate. In addition, the manual flow regulator was the most cost-effective. Healthcare providers can adapt these devices to their practice environments and improve the safety of rate-sensitive IV medications without significant strain on electricity, time, or personnel resources.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury is a clinical entity that can lead to respiratory failure and death. Despite the severity of electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury, the role of extracorporeal life support in its management remains unclear. Our objective was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury who received extracorporeal life support. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective review of records of electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury patients who received extracorporeal life support. Standardized data were collected via direct contact with extracorporeal life support centers. Data regarding presentation, ventilatory management, extracorporeal life support details, and outcome were analyzed. SETTING: This was a multi-institutional, international case series with patients from 10 different institutions in three different countries. PATIENTS: Patients who met criteria for confirmed electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (based on previously reported diagnostic criteria) and were placed on extracorporeal life support were included. Patients were identified via literature review and by direct contact with extracorporeal life support centers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected for 14 patients ranging from 16 to 45 years old. All had confirmed vape use within 3 months of presentation. Nicotine was the most commonly used vaping product. All patients had respiratory symptoms and radiographic evidence of bilateral pulmonary opacities. IV antibiotics and corticosteroids were universally initiated. Patients were intubated for 1.9 days (range, 0-6) prior to extracorporeal life support initiation. Poor oxygenation and ventilation were the most common indications for extracorporeal life support. Five patients showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography. Thirteen patients (93%) were placed on venovenous extracorporeal life support, and one patient required multiple rounds of extracorporeal life support. Total extracorporeal life support duration ranged from 2 to 37 days. Thirteen patients survived to hospital discharge; one patient died of septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury can cause refractory respiratory failure and hypoxemia. These data suggest that venovenous extracorporeal life support can be an effective treatment option for profound, refractory respiratory failure secondary to electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury.
