Meyer, Todd J.

BACKGROUND: Methacholine challenge testing (MCT) is a common bronchoprovocation technique used to assess airway hyper-responsiveness. We previously demonstrated that the addition of a viral filter to the nebulizer exhalation limb substantially reduced expelled particles during MCT. Our aim was to evaluate whether this modification affects the delivered dose of methacholine. METHODS: A mechanical ventilator was connected to a lung simulator with breathing frequency 15 breaths/min, tidal volume 500 mL, inspiratory-expiratory ratio 1:1, with a sinusoidal waveform. We compared methacholine dose delivery using the Hudson Micro Mist or AeroEclipse II BAN nebulizers powered by either a dry gas source or a compressor system. A filter placed in line between the nebulizer and test lung was weighed before and after 1 min of nebulized methacholine delivery. Mean inhaled mass was measured with and without a viral filter on the exhalation limb. Dose delivery was calculated by multiplying the mean inhaled mass by the respirable fraction (particles < 5 μm) and inhalation time. Unpaired t test was used to compare methacholine dose delivery with and without viral filter placement. RESULTS: The addition of a viral filter did not significantly affect methacholine dose delivery across all devices tested. Using a 50-psi dry gas source, dose delivered with or without a viral filter did not differ with the Hudson (422.3 μg vs 282.0 μg, P = .11) or the AeroEclipse nebulizer (563.0 μg vs 657.6 μg, P = .59). Using the compressor, dose delivered with and without a viral filter did not differ with the Hudson (974.0 μg vs 868.0 μg, P = .03) or the AeroEclipse nebulizer (818.0 μg vs 628.5 μg, P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a viral filter to the nebulizer exhalation limb did not affect methacholine dose during bronchoprovocation testing. Routine use of a viral filter should be considered to improve pulmonary function technician safety and infection control measures during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Current mechanical ventilation practice and the use of treatment adjuncts in patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for refractory hypoxemia (RH) vary widely and their impact on outcomes remains unclear. In 2015, we implemented a standardized approach to protocolized ventilator settings and guide the escalation of adjunct therapies in patients with RH. This study aimed to investigate ICU mortality, its associated risk factors, and mechanical ventilation practice before and after the implementation of a standardized RH guideline in patients requiring venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO). METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing VV-ECMO due to RH respiratory failure between January 2008 and March 2015 (before RH protocol implementation) and between April 2015 and October 2019 (after RH protocol implementation). RESULTS: A total of 103 subjects receiving VV-ECMO for RH were analyzed. After implementation of the RH protocol, more subjects received prone positioning (6.7% vs 23.3%, P = .02), and fewer received high-frequency oscillatory ventilation than before launching the RH protocol (0% vs 13.3%, P = .01). Plateau pressure was also lower before initiation of ECMO ( P = .04) and at day 1 during ECMO ( P = .045). Driving pressure was consistently lower at days 1, 2, and 3 after ECMO initiation: median 13.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 10.6–18.0) vs 16.0 (IQR 14.0–20.0) cm H 2 O at day 1 ( P = .003); 13.0 (IQR 11.0–15.9) vs 15.5 (IQR 12.0–20.0) cm H 2 O at day 2 ( P = .03); and 12.0 (IQR 10.0–14.5) vs 15.0 (IQR 12.0–19.0) cm H 2 O at day 3 ( P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a standardized RH guideline improved compliance with a lung-protective ventilation strategy and utilization of the prone position and was associated with lower driving pressure during the first 3 days after ECMO initiation in subjects with refractory hypoxemia.

Abstract Background: Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is commonly encountered during mechanical ventilation of critically ill patients. Estimates of PVA incidence vary widely. Type, risk factors, and consequences of PVA remain unclear. We aimed to measure the incidence and identify types of PVA, characterize risk factors for development, and explore the relationship between PVA and outcome among critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to medical, surgical, and medical-surgical intensive care units in a large academic institution staffed with varying provider training background.Methods: A single center, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥12 hours.Results: A total of 676 patients who underwent 696 episodes of mechanical ventilation were included. Overall PVA occurred in 170 (24%) episodes. Double triggering 92(13%) was most common, followed by flow starvation 73(10%). A history of smoking, and pneumonia, sepsis, or ARDS were risk factors for overall PVA and double triggering (all P<0.05). Compared with volume targeted ventilation, pressure targeted ventilation decreased the occurrence of events (all P<0.01). During volume controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure targeted ventilation, ventilator settings were associated with the incidence of overall PVA. The number of overall PVA, as well as double triggering and flow starvation specifically, were associated with worse outcomes and fewer hospital-free days (all P<0.01).Conclusion: Double triggering and flow starvation are the most common PVA among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Overall incidence as well as double triggering and flow starvation PVA specifically, portend worse outcome.

Purpose: Data regarding best practices for ventilator management strategies that improve outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are readily available. However, little is known regarding processes to ensure compliance with these strategies. We developed a goal-directed mechanical ventilation order set that included physician-specified lung-protective ventilation and oxygenation goals to be implemented by respiratory therapists (RTs). We sought as a primary outcome to determine whether an RT-driven order set with predefined oxygenation and ventilation goals could be implemented and associated with improved adherence with best practice. Methods: We evaluated 1302 patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (1693 separate episodes of invasive mechanical ventilation) prior to and after institution of a standardized, goal-directed mechanical ventilation order set using a controlled before-and-after study design. Patient-specific goals for oxygenation partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (Pao 2 ), ARDS Network [Net] positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]/fraction of inspired oxygen [Fio 2 ] table use) and ventilation (pH, partial pressure of carbon dioxide) were selected by prescribers and implemented by RTs. Results: Compliance with the new mechanical ventilation order set was high: 88.2% compliance versus 3.8% before implementation of the order set ( P < .001). Adherence to the PEEP/Fio 2 table after implementation of the order set was significantly greater (86.0% after vs 82.9% before, P = .02). There was no difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and in-hospital or ICU mortality. Conclusions: A standardized best practice mechanical ventilation order set can be implemented by a multidisciplinary team and is associated with improved compliance to written orders and adherence to the ARDSNet PEEP/Fio 2 table.