Invasive devices are routinely used in the care of critically ill patients. Although they are often essential components of patient care, devices such as intravascular catheters, endotracheal tubes, and ventilators are a common source of complications in the intensive care unit. Critical care practitioners who use these devices need to use strategies for risk reduction and understand approaches to management when adverse events occur. This review discusses the identification, prevention, and management of complications of vascular, airway, and mechanical support devices commonly used in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical power of ventilation, a summary parameter reflecting the energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system, has associations with outcomes. INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation is an automated ventilation mode that changes ventilator settings according to algorithms that target a low work-and force of breathing. The study aims to compare mechanical power between automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation and conventional ventilation in critically ill patients.
METHODS: International, multicenter, randomized crossover clinical trial in patients that were expected to need invasive ventilation > 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 3-hour period of automated ventilation or conventional ventilation after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was mechanical power in passive and active patients; secondary outcomes included key ventilator settings and ventilatory parameters that affect mechanical power.
RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were randomized. Median mechanical power was not different between automated and conventional ventilation (15.8 [11.5-21.0] versus 16.1 [10.9-22.6] J/min; mean difference -0.44 (95%-CI -1.17 to 0.29) J/min; P = 0.24). Subgroup analyses showed that mechanical power was lower with automated ventilation in passive patients, 16.9 [12.5-22.1] versus 19.0 [14.1-25.0] J/min; mean difference -1.76 (95%-CI -2.47 to -10.34J/min; P < 0.01), and not in active patients (14.6 [11.0-20.3] vs 14.1 [10.1-21.3] J/min; mean difference 0.81 (95%-CI -2.13 to 0.49) J/min; P = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of unselected critically ill invasively ventilated patients, automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation did not reduce mechanical power. A reduction in mechanical power was only seen in passive patients.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04827927), April 1, 2021.
UNASSIGNED: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04827927?term=intellipower&rank=1.

Given the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) We recommend assessment of plateau pressure to ensure lung-protective ventilator settings (strong recommendation, high certainty); (2) We recommend an assessment of tidal volume (VT) to ensure lung-protective ventilation (4-8 mL/kg/predicted body weight) (strong recommendation, high certainty); (3) We recommend documenting VT as mL/kg predicted body weight (strong recommendation, high certainty); (4) We recommend an assessment of PEEP and auto-PEEP (strong recommendation, high certainty); (5) We suggest assessing driving pressure to prevent ventilator-induced injury (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (6) We suggest assessing FIO2 to ensure normoxemia (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (7) We suggest telemonitoring to supplement direct bedside assessment in settings with limited resources (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (8) We suggest direct bedside assessment rather than telemonitoring when resources are adequate (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (9) We suggest assessing adequate humidification for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (10) We suggest assessing the appropriateness of the humidification device during NIV and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (11) We recommend that the skin surrounding artificial airways and NIV interfaces be assessed (strong recommendation, high certainty); (12) We suggest assessing the dressing used for tracheostomy tubes and NIV interfaces (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (13) We recommend assessing the pressure inside the cuff of artificial airways using a manometer (strong recommendation, high certainty); (14) We recommend that continuous cuff pressure assessment should not be implemented to decrease the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (strong recommendation, high certainty); and (15) We suggest assessing the proper placement and securement of artificial airways (conditional recommendation, very low certainty).

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, this study delves into ventilator shortages, exploring simple split ventilation (SSV), simple differential ventilation (SDV), and differential multiventilation (DMV). The knowledge gap centers on understanding their performance and safety implications.
OBJECTIVE: Our hypothesis posits that SSV, SDV, and DMV offer solutions to the ventilator crisis. Rigorous testing was anticipated to unveil advantages and limitations, aiding the development of effective ventilation approaches.
UNASSIGNED: Using a specialized test bed, SSV, SDV, and DMV were compared. Simulated lungs in a controlled setting facilitated measurements with sensors. Statistical analysis honed in on parameters like peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and positive end-expiratory pressure.
RESULTS: Setting target PIP at 15 cm H2O for lung 1 and 12.5 cm H2O for lung 2, SSV revealed a PIP of 15.67 ± 0.2 cm H2O for both lungs, with tidal volume (Vt) at 152.9 ± 9 mL. In SDV, lung 1 had a PIP of 25.69 ± 0.2 cm H2O, lung 2 at 24.73 ± 0.2 cm H2O, and Vts of 464.3 ± 0.9 mL and 453.1 ± 10 mL, respectively. DMV trials showed lung 1\'s PIP at 13.97 ± 0.06 cm H2O, lung 2 at 12.30 ± 0.04 cm H2O, with Vts of 125.8 ± 0.004 mL and 104.4 ± 0.003 mL, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study enriches understanding of ventilator sharing strategy, emphasizing the need for careful selection. DMV, offering individualization while maintaining circuit continuity, stands out. Findings lay the foundation for robust multiplexing strategies, enhancing ventilator management in crises.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of FLow-controlled EXpiration (FLEX) ventilation expiration time and speed on respiratory and pulmonary mechanics in anesthetized horses in dorsal recumbency.
METHODS: 6 healthy adult research horses.
METHODS: In this randomized crossover experimental study, horses were anesthetized 3 times and were ventilated each time for 60 minutes using conventional volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), linear emptying of the lung over 50% of the expiratory time (FLEX50), or linear emptying of the lung over 100% of the expiratory time (FLEX100) in a randomized order. The primary outcome variables were dynamic compliance (Cdyn), hysteresis, and alveolar dead space. The data was analyzed using two-factor ANOVA. Significance was set to P < .05.
RESULTS: Horses ventilated using FLEX50 and FLEX100 showed significantly higher Cdyn and significantly lower hysteresis values compared to horses ventilated using VCV. Horses ventilated using FLEX50 had significantly lower alveolar dead space compared to horses ventilated using FLEX100 or VCV. Horses ventilated using FLEX100 had significantly lower alveolar dead space compared to VCV horses.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate improved Cdyn, hysteresis, and alveolar dead space in horses ventilated with either FLEX50 or FLEX100 relative to traditional VCV. The use of FLEX with a faster exhalation speed (FLEX50) offers additional respiratory advantages.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy-related acquired pressure injuries (TRPIs) are one of the hospital-acquired conditions. We hypothesize that an uneven ventilator circuit load, leading to non-neutral tracheostomy tube positioning in the immediate post-tracheostomy period, leads to an increased incidence of TRPIs. Does switching the ventilator circuit load daily, in addition to standard post-tracheostomy care, lead to a decreased incidence of TRPIs?
METHODS: This is a prospective quality improvement study. Study was conducted at two academic hospital sites within tertiary care hospitals at Emory University in different ICUs. Consecutive patients undergoing bedside percutaneous tracheostomy by the interventional pulmonary service were included. The flip the ventilator circuit (FLIC) protocol was designed and implemented in selected ICUs, with other ICUs as controls.
RESULTS: Incidence of TRPI in intervention and control group were recorded at post-tracheostomy day 5. A total of 99 patients were included from October 22, 2019, to May 22, 2020. Overall, the total incidence of any TRPI was 23% at post-tracheostomy day 5. Incidence of stage I, stage II, and stages III-IV TRPIs at postoperative day 5 was 11%, 12%, and 0%, respectively. There was a decrease in the rate of skin breakdown in patients following the FLIC protocol when compared with standard of care (13% vs. 36%; p = 0.01). In a multivariable analysis, interventional group had decreased odds of developing TRPI (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.92; p = 0.03) after adjusting for age, albumin, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, and days in hospital before tracheostomy.
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of TRPIs within the first week following percutaneous tracheostomy is high. Switching the side of the ventilator circuit to evenly distribute load, in addition to standard bundled tracheostomy care, may decrease the overall incidence of TRPIs.

BACKGROUND: Maximizing the capabilities of available lowflow oxygen is key to providing adequate oxygen to prevent/treat hypoxemia and conserve oxygen. We designed a closed-circuit system that allows rebreathing of gases while scrubbing carbon dioxide (CO2) in conjunction with portable mechanical ventilators in a bench model.
METHODS: We evaluated the system using two portable mechanical ventilators currently deployed by the Department of Defense-Zoll 731 and AutoMedx SAVe II-over a range of ventilator settings and lung models, using 1 and 3L/min low-flow oxygen into a reservoir bag. We measured peak inspired oxygen concentration (FiO2), CO2-absorbent life, gas temperature and humidity, and the effect of airway suctioning and ventilator disconnection on FiO2 on ground and at altitude.
RESULTS: FiO2 was =0.9 across all ventilator settings and altitudes using both oxygen flows. CO2-absorbent life was >7 hours. Airway humidity range was 87%-97%. Mean airway temperature was 25.4°C (SD 0.5°C). Ten-second suctioning reduced FiO2 22%-48%. Thirtysecond ventilator disconnect reduced FiO2 29%-63% depending on oxygen flow used.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a rebreathing system with mechanical ventilation has the potential for oxygen conservation but requires diligent monitoring of inspired FiO2 and CO2 to avoid negative consequences.