Frequent Versus Infrequent Monitoring of Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressures.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no accepted standard of practice for the optimal frequency of endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring in mechanically ventilated patients. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare infrequent endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring (immediately after intubation and when clinically indicated for an observed air leak or due to tube migration) with frequent endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring (immediately after intubation, every 8 h, and when clinically indicated). METHODS: We performed a prospective clinical trial with subjects assigned to study groups based on room assignment. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a ventilator-associated event (VAE) and was adjudicated by individuals blinded to the conduct of this study. RESULTS: We enrolled 305 subjects, with 166 (54.4%) assigned to frequent monitoring and 139 (45.6%) assigned to infrequent monitoring. The total number of endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring events for both groups was 1,531 versus 336, respectively. The occurrence of VAEs was infrequent and similar for both groups (3.6% vs 5.8%, P = .37). Witnessed aspiration events (0.6% vs 0%, P = .36), ventilator-associated pneumonia (0% vs 0.7%, P = .27), 30-d mortality (31.3% vs 30.2%, P = .83), and hospital length of stay (10 d [6 d, 21 d] vs 11 d [6 d, 21 d], P = .34) were also similar for both study groups. The 30-d hospital readmission rate was statistically lower for the group that received infrequent monitoring (15.1% vs 6.5%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: More frequent cuff pressure monitoring was not associated with any identifiable clinical outcome benefit.

A Respiratory Therapist Disease Management Program for Subjects Hospitalized With COPD.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD often require repeated emergency department visits and hospitalizations for COPD exacerbations. Such readmissions increase health-care costs and expose COPD patients to the added risks of nosocomial infections and increased mortality. METHODS: To determine whether a respiratory therapist (RT) disease management program could reduce re-hospitalization and emergency department visits, a prospective, single-center, unblinded, randomized trial was performed. RESULTS: We enrolled 428 subjects (214 intervention, 214 control). The primary outcome (combined non-hospitalized emergency department visits and hospital readmissions for a COPD exacerbation during the 6-month follow-up) was similar for the study groups (91 vs 159, P = .08). When the 2 components of the primary end point were analyzed individually, the percentage of subjects with non-hospitalized emergency department visits for COPD exacerbations was similar between groups (15.0% vs 15.9%, P = .79). Readmission for a COPD exacerbation was significantly lower in the intervention group (20.1% vs 28.5%, P = .042). The median (interquartile range) duration of hospitalization for a COPD exacerbation was less for the intervention group (5 [3-11] d vs 8 [4-18.5] d, P = .045). In-patient hospital days (306 d vs 523 d, P = .02) and ICU days (17 d vs 53 d, P = .02) due to COPD exacerbations were significantly less for the intervention group. Mortality was similar for both groups (1.4% vs 0.9%, P > .99). CONCLUSIONS: Our RT disease management program was associated with less readmission, fewer ICU days, and shorter hospital stays due to COPD exacerbations. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal utilization of RT disease management teams for patients with COPD to optimize outcomes and prevent return hospital visits. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01543217.).

Use of a Shared Canister Protocol for the Delivery of Metered-Dose Inhalers in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients often need bronchodilators administered via a metered-dose inhaler (MDI). Unfortunately, there are no data examining the impact of shared canister delivery of MDI therapy in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: A prospective trial was conducted with subjects assigned to shared canister MDI therapy or single-patient canister MDI therapy. Outcomes assessed were occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), hospital mortality, length of stay, ventilator-associated events, and MDI costs. RESULTS: Among 486 screened patients, 353 were included for analysis of which 201 (56.9%) received shared canister MDI therapy and 152 (43.1%) received single-patient canister therapy. VAP (7.0% vs 4.6%, P = .35), hospital mortality (21.9% vs 20.4%, P = .73), and ventilator days (median [interquartile range] 3.1 [0.9-7.5] d vs 2.7 [1.2-7.1] d, P = .62) were similar between the shared canister and single-patient canister groups. We did not observe clinically important differences for ventilator-associated events between study groups in our logistic regression analysis (P = .07). There was a savings of $217/subject in the shared canister group due to the use of 299 fewer MDIs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that shared canister MDI therapy compared with single-patient MDI use was associated with a significant cost savings and similar rates of VAP, hospital mortality, and length of stay but a greater prevalence of ventilator-associated events. This finding suggests that shared canister delivery of MDIs may be a cost-effective practice in mechanically ventilated patients. Based on our findings, further studies examining the overall safety of shared canister use in mechanically ventilated patients seem warranted before recommending their routine use. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01935388.).

Pressure Ulcer Incidence in Patients Wearing Nasal-Oral Versus Full-Face Noninvasive Ventilation Masks.

BACKGROUND: Device-related pressure ulcers from noninvasive ventilation masks alter skin integrity and cause patients discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence, location, and stage of pressure ulcers and patients' comfort with a nasal-oral mask compared with a full-face mask. METHODS: A before-after study of a convenience sample of patients with noninvasive ventilation orders in 5 intensive care units was conducted. Two groups of 100 patients each received either the nasal-oral mask or the full-face mask. Skin was assessed before the mask was applied and every 12 hours after that or upon mask removal. Comfort levels were assessed every 12 hours on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1, most comfortable). RESULTS: A pressure ulcer developed in 20% of patients in the nasal-oral mask group and 2% of patients in the full-face mask group (P < .001). Comfort scores were significantly lower (more comfortable) with the full-face mask (mean [SD], 1.9 [1.1]) than with the nasal-oral mask (mean [SD], 2.7 [1.2], P < .001). Neither mean hours worn nor percentage adherence differed significantly: 28.9 (SD, 27.2) hours and 92% for full-face mask and 25 (SD, 20.7) and 92% for nasal-oral mask. No patients who had a pressure ulcer develop with the nasal-oral mask had a pressure ulcer develop with the full-face mask. CONCLUSION: The full-face mask resulted in significantly fewer pressure ulcers and was more comfortable for patients. The full-face mask is a reasonable alternative to traditional nasal-oral masks for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation.

Predictors of outcome in 216 subjects with ARDS treated with inhaled epoprostenol.

BACKGROUND: ARDS is an important cause of respiratory failure and continues to be associated with a high mortality rate. Numerous therapeutic interventions have been employed to improve patient outcomes, including inhaled epoprostenol. METHODS: We examined subjects with ARDS treated with epoprostenol. We compared hospital survivors with nonsurvivors to identify predictors of mortality. RESULTS: Among the cohort (n=216), there were 80 (37%) hospital survivors and 136 (63%) hospital nonsurvivors. Logistic regression revealed 5 variables associated with hospital mortality: trauma as the etiology for ARDS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.09, 95% CI 0.04­0.22, P=.006), presence of both pulmonary and nonpulmonary sources of sepsis (AOR 3.06, 95% CI 1.98-4.74, P.01), an international normalized ratio of > 1.5 (AOR 3.15, 95% CI 2.19-4.54, P=.002), body mass index (1-unit increments, AOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.936-0.965, P=.001), and an incremental change in PaO2/FIO2 during the first 24 h of treatment with epoprostenol (AOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.988-0.994, P=.002). An analysis for 90-d mortality identified the same predictors, with the addition of cumulative fluid balance during treatment with epoprostenol of > 4 L also being an independent predictor (AOR 2.36, 95% CI 1.66-3.37, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of epoprostenol in ARDS remains a therapeutic challenge, we were able to identify predictors of mortality for this important cohort of patients. These predictor variables could be employed in the design of future trials of epoprostenol in ARDS.

A randomized trial of conventional chest physical therapy versus high frequency chest wall compressions in intubated and non-intubated adults.

BACKGROUND: Conventional chest physical therapy (CCPT), applied by therapists using cupped hands to perform percussion, is commonly used in hospitalized adults. However, increased work load demands and occupational health concerns (eg, carpal tunnel syndrome) limit the overall utilization of this therapy. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare the overall effectiveness of CCPT to high-frequency chest wall compressions (HFCWC) applied via a vibratory vest. METHODS: A single-center, randomized trial among hospitalized intubated and non-intubated adult patients requiring chest physical therapy comparing CCPT and HFCWC. The primary outcome measure was hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 280 per-protocol patients (out of an a priori estimated 320 patients required to demonstrate a 20% relative reduction in hospital stay) were randomly assigned to receive CCPT (no. = 146, 52.1%) or HFCWC (no. = 134, 47.9%). The hospital stay was 12.5 ± 8.8 days for patients randomized to CCPT and 13.0 ± 8.9 days for patients randomized to HFCWC (P = .62). Patient comfort was assessed using a visual analog scale (increasing score reflects greater discomfort) and was statistically greater for patients randomized to CCPT compared to HFCWC (2.2 ± 0.8 vs 1.9 ± 0.8, P = .009). The duration of time until radiographic resolution of lobar atelectasis trended less for CCPT compared to HFCWC (5.2 ± 4.3 d vs 6.5 ± 5.2 d, P = .051). All other secondary outcomes, including hospital mortality and nosocomial pneumonia, were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study was inadequately powered for the primary outcome of interest and hence we cannot make recommendations on the preferential use of HFCWC or CCPT for intubated and non-intubated adult patients. HFCWC was associated with statistically better comfort scores. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT00717873.).