Comprehensive study of mechanical power in controlled mechanical ventilation: Prevalence of elevated mechanical power and component analysis / Estudio Integral de la Potencia Mecánica en la Ventilación Mecánica Controlada: Prevalencia de Potencia Mecánica Elevada y Análisis de Componentes

Objective To determine the prevalence of elevated mechanical power (MP) values (>17J/min) used in routine clinical practice. Design Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, analytical, multicenter, international study conducted on November 21, 2019, from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. NCT03936231. Setting One hundred thirty-three Critical Care Units. Patients Patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for any cause. Interventions None. Main variables of interest Mechanical power. Results A population of 372 patients was analyzed. PM was significantly higher in patients under pressure-controlled ventilation (PC) compared to volume-controlled ventilation (VC) (19.20±8.44J/min vs. 16.01±6.88J/min; p<0.001), but the percentage of patients with PM>17J/min was not different (41% vs. 35%, respectively; p=0.382). The best models according to AICcw expressing PM for patients in VC are described as follows: Surrogate Strain (Driving Pressure) + PEEP+Surrogate Strain Rate (PEEP/Flow Ratio) + Respiratory Rate. For patients in PC, it is defined as: Surrogate Strain (Expiratory Tidal Volume/PEEP) + PEEP+Surrogate Strain Rate (Surrogate Strain/Ti) + Respiratory Rate+Expiratory Tidal Volume+Ti. Conclusions A substantial proportion of mechanically ventilated patients may be at risk of experiencing elevated levels of mechanical power. Despite observed differences in mechanical power values between VC and PC ventilation, they did not result in a significant disparity in the prevalence of high mechanical power values. (AU)

Objetivo Determinar la prevalencia de valores elevados de potencia mecánica (PM) (>17J/min) utilizados en la práctica clínica habitual. Diseño estudio observacional, descriptivo de corte transversal, analítico, multicéntrico e internacional, realizado el 21 de noviembre de 2019 en horario de 8 a 15 horas. NCT03936231. Ámbito Ciento treinta y tres Unidad de Cuidados Críticos. Pacientes pacientes que recibirán ventilación mecánica por cualquier causa. Intervenciones ninguna Variables de interés principales Potencia mecánica. Resultados se analizaron 372 enfermos. La PM fue significativamente mayor en pacientes en ventilación controlada por presión (PC) que en ventilación controlada por volumen (VC) (19,20+8,44J/min frente a 16,01+6,88J/min; p<0,001), pero el porcentaje de pacientes con PM>17J/min no fue diferente (41% frente a 35% respectivamente; p=0,382). Los mejores modelos según AICcw que expresan la PM para los enfermos en VC se decribe como: Strain subrogante (Presión de conducción) + PEEP+Strain Rate subrogante (PEEP/cociente de flujo) + Frecuencia respiratoria. Para los enfermos en PC se define como: Strain subrogante (Volumen tidal expiratorio/PEEP) + PEEP+Strain Rate subrogante (Strain subrogante/Ti) + Frecuencia respiratoria+Expiratory Tidal Volumen+Ti. Conclusiones Gran parte de los pacientes en ventilación mecánica en condiciones de práctica clínica habitual reciben niveles de potencia mecánica peligrosos. A pesar de las diferencias observadas en los valores de potencia mecánica entre la ventilación VC y PC, este porcentaje de riesgo fue similar en PC y VC. (AU)

Comprehensive study of mechanical power in controlled mechanical ventilation: Prevalence of elevated mechanical power and component analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of elevated mechanical power (MP) values (>17J/min) used in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, analytical, multicenter, international study conducted on November 21, 2019, from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. NCT03936231. SETTING: One hundred thirty-three Critical Care Units. PATIENTS: Patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for any cause. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Mechanical power. RESULTS: A population of 372 patients was analyzed. PM was significantly higher in patients under pressure-controlled ventilation (PC) compared to volume-controlled ventilation (VC) (19.20±8.44J/min vs. 16.01±6.88J/min; p<0.001), but the percentage of patients with PM>17J/min was not different (41% vs. 35%, respectively; p=0.382). The best models according to AICcw expressing PM for patients in VC are described as follows: Surrogate Strain (Driving Pressure) + PEEP+Surrogate Strain Rate (PEEP/Flow Ratio) + Respiratory Rate. For patients in PC, it is defined as: Surrogate Strain (Expiratory Tidal Volume/PEEP) + PEEP+Surrogate Strain Rate (Surrogate Strain/Ti) + Respiratory Rate+Expiratory Tidal Volume+Ti. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of mechanically ventilated patients may be at risk of experiencing elevated levels of mechanical power. Despite observed differences in mechanical power values between VC and PC ventilation, they did not result in a significant disparity in the prevalence of high mechanical power values.

Health-related quality of life as a prognostic factor of survival in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether health-related quality of life prior to admission into an intensive care unit (ICU) is a prognostic factor of hospital and 1 year mortality. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fourteen-bed medical-surgical ICU. PATIENTS: A total of 377 patients admitted to the ICU for more than 24 h with 1-year follow-up after discharge from the hospital. INTERVENTION: A health-related quality of life (HRQoL) survey was conducted, using the questionnaire developed by the "Project for the Epidemiological Analysis of Critical Care Patients", to assess patient's quality of life 1 month before ICU hospitalization. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was independently associated with severity assessed by APACHE II, odds ratio (OR) 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.2; P < 0.001], high workload assessed by Nine Equivalents of Nursing Manpower Score > 30 OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.4-9.0; P = 0.006), hospital length of stay prior to ICU admission of more than 2 days OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.3-5.4; P = 0.008), and bad quality of life prior to ICU admission assessed by a HRQoL score > or = 8 points OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.03-4.5; P = 0.04). Patients who scored > or =8 on the HRQoL survey presented a risk of demise 12 months after discharge almost twofold that of those who had good previous HRQoL (0-2 points), Hazard Ratio 1.9 (95% CI 1.3-2.8; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Bad quality of life is associated with hospital mortality and survival 12 months after hospital discharge.