Pannu, Sonal

BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygenation during mechanical ventilation is harmful in critically ill patients and in certain subsets of patients, including those with stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiac arrest. Surveillance through electronic medical records improves safety of mechanical ventilation in the ICU. To date, this practice has not been used for oxygen titration ( F IO 2 ) in adults. We hypothesize that a surveillance system based on the electronic medical record to alert respiratory therapists to titrate F IO 2 is feasible, safe, and efficacious. METHODS: In this pilot study, mechanically ventilated subjects were randomized to respiratory therapist-driven F IO 2 titration after an electronic alert versus standard of care (ie, titration based on physician order). An automated surveillance system utilizing a hyperoxemia-detection algorithm generated an electronic alert to a respiratory therapist’s pager. Hyperoxemia was defined as F IO 2 > 0.5 and S pO 2 > 95% for > 30 min. No other aspects of treatment were changed. We assessed feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy. Primary outcome was duration of hyperoxemia during mechanical ventilation. An unsafe outcome was identified as hypoxemia ( S pO 2 < 88%) within 1 h after titration per alert. Feasibility was assessed by a survey of respiratory therapists. RESULTS: Of 226 randomized subjects, 31 were excluded (eg, programming errors of the electronic alerts, no consent, physician discretion). We included 195 subjects, of whom 86 were in the intervention arm. Alert accuracy was 78%, and respiratory therapists responded to 64% of the alerts. During mechanical ventilation, exposure to hyperoxemia significantly decreased in the intervention group (median 13.5 h [interquartile range 6.2–29.4] vs 18.8 h [interquartile range 9.6–37.4]). No episodes of significant hypoxemia were registered. Most respiratory therapists agreed that the alert was helpful in reducing excessive oxygen exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an electronic surveillance system to titrate F IO 2 was safe and feasible and showed preliminary efficacy in reducing hyperoxemia. Our study serves to justify larger randomized controlled trials for F IO 2 titration.

Abstract Rationale The management of severe and refractory hypoxemia in critically ill adult patients is practice based. Variability across individual practitioners and institutions is not well documented. Objectives To conduct a nationwide survey of critical care physicians in the United States regarding accepted definitions and management strategies for severe and refractory hypoxemia. Methods A web-based survey was distributed to a stratified random sample of adult intensivists listed in the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The survey was generated by using a mixed-methods approach. Measurements and Main Results: In the survey, 4,865 e-mails were sent and 791 (16.3%) were opened. Among those who opened the e-mail message, 50% (n = 396) responded, representing 8.1% of total surveys sent. Seventy-two percent stated that their institutions lacked a protocol for identification and management of severe or refractory hypoxemia in the setting of acute respiratory failure. While the majority of respondents used low-Vt ventilation (81%), high positive end-expiratory pressure (86%), recruitment maneuvers (89%), and either bolus or infusion neuromuscular blockade (94%), there was marked variability in the use of specific rescue strategies as tier 1 or 2 interventions: prone position (27.8% vs. 47.8%, respectively), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (2.3% vs. 51.2%, respectively), airway pressure release ventilation (49% vs. 34.5%, respectively), inhaled vasodilators (30.1% vs. 40%, respectively), and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (7.8% vs. 40%, respectively). The variability was partly explained by providers’ expertise with particular rescue strategies (77.7%), advance directives (70.1%), the training of allied health staff (62.3%), and institutional availability (53.8%). Conclusions U.S. adult critical care physicians predominantly employ lung-protective ventilation for severe hypoxemia. A wide variation in other rescue strategies is noted, which is partly explained by user expertise and availability. Less than 30% institutions have formal protocols for management of refractory hypoxemia.

BACKGROUND: Subjects with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure have shown a high mortality in previous studies. METHODS: All adult ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation from 2005 to 2010 at Mayo Clinic were screened for severe hypoxemia (Murray lung injury score of ≥ 3). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone positioning, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and inhaled vasodilators were considered as rescue strategies. A propensity-based scoring was created for the indication or predilection to use each strategy. A model was created to evaluate the association of each rescue strategy with hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 1,032 subjects with severe hypoxemia, 239 subjects received some form of rescue strategy (59 received a combination of therapies, and 180 received individual therapies). Inhaled vasodilators were the most common, followed by HFOV. Rescue strategies were used in younger subjects with severe oxygenation deficits. Subjects receiving rescue strategies had higher mortality and longer ICU stays. None of the strategies individually or in combination showed a significant association with hospital mortality after adjusting covariates by propensity scoring. Adjusted Odds ratios and respective 95% CI were as follows: HFOV 0.67 (0.35–1.27), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation 0.63 (0.18–1.92), prone position 1.07 (0.49–2.28), and inhaled vasodilators 1.17 (0.78–1.77). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective comparative effectiveness study, there was no association of rescue strategies with hospital mortality in subjects with severe hypoxemia.