Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundAirway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has become increasingly popular for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, its clinical impact remains a topic of debate. Furthermore, there is a gap between the guidelines and the actual clinical practices in mechanical ventilation management for ARDS. This survey aimed to explore the utilization of APRV and mechanical ventilation strategies for ARDS in Chinese intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians.MethodsA comprehensive 34‐item survey was distributed online platforms amongst ICU clinicians across mainland China from June to August 2019.ResultsA total of 420 valid responses were collected, with 57.4% (241) originating from academic hospitals and 42.6% (179) from non‐academic hospitals. Of the respondents, 98.6% (414) recognized the significance of low tidal volume ventilation for ARDS prognosis, 85.2% adhered to a tidal volume below 8 mL/kg predicted body weight, and most (46.4%) selected the initial positive end‐expiratory pressure within the range of 5–10 cmH2O based on experience. Among the respondents, 62.1% (261) reported familiarity with APRV and 41.9% (176) had implemented APRV. Of those who had utilized APRV, 93.2% (164) believed in its effectiveness for ARDS patients and 69.3% (122) advocated for early application of APRV. Substantial variations were noted regarding APRV initiation settings and the preservation of spontaneous breathing during APRV. Academic hospitals exhibited higher usage rates of lung recruitment, neuromuscular blockade, prone ventilation, and acquaintance with and utilization of APRV compared to non‐academic hospitals (all p values ≤ 0.001).ConclusionsOur findings highlight opportunities for improvement in mechanical ventilation management for ARDS, particularly in non‐academic hospitals. Additionally, a significant proportion of clinicians demonstrated limited knowledge of APRV, and there was a lack of consensus on its application. Further training and larger‐scale clinical trials are required to validate the efficacy and utilization of APRV in managing ARDS.
BackgroundAirway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has become increasingly popular for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, its clinical impact remains a topic of debate. Furthermore, there is a gap between the guidelines and the actual clinical practices in mechanical ventilation management for ARDS. This survey aimed to explore the utilization of APRV and mechanical ventilation strategies for ARDS in Chinese intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians.MethodsA comprehensive 34‐item survey was distributed online platforms amongst ICU clinicians across mainland China from June to August 2019.ResultsA total of 420 valid responses were collected, with 57.4% (241) originating from academic hospitals and 42.6% (179) from non‐academic hospitals. Of the respondents, 98.6% (414) recognized the significance of low tidal volume ventilation for ARDS prognosis, 85.2% adhered to a tidal volume below 8 mL/kg predicted body weight, and most (46.4%) selected the initial positive end‐expiratory pressure within the range of 5–10 cmH2O based on experience. Among the respondents, 62.1% (261) reported familiarity with APRV and 41.9% (176) had implemented APRV. Of those who had utilized APRV, 93.2% (164) believed in its effectiveness for ARDS patients and 69.3% (122) advocated for early application of APRV. Substantial variations were noted regarding APRV initiation settings and the preservation of spontaneous breathing during APRV. Academic hospitals exhibited higher usage rates of lung recruitment, neuromuscular blockade, prone ventilation, and acquaintance with and utilization of APRV compared to non‐academic hospitals (all p values ≤ 0.001).ConclusionsOur findings highlight opportunities for improvement in mechanical ventilation management for ARDS, particularly in non‐academic hospitals. Additionally, a significant proportion of clinicians demonstrated limited knowledge of APRV, and there was a lack of consensus on its application. Further training and larger‐scale clinical trials are required to validate the efficacy and utilization of APRV in managing ARDS.
Background: Mechanical ventilation is a common and often lifesaving intervention that is utilised in intensive care. However, the practices can vary between centres. Through this national survey we aim to gain more information about different strategies adopted across the UK. Methods: All adult intensive care units in the UK were approached to participate. The questionnaire was developed with an electronic survey engine and conducted between 09/11/2023 and 01/04/2024 (Survey Monkey®). The survey included questions on ventilator modes, settings, protocols/pathways, rescue strategies, immediate post-extubation period and follow-up. Results: There were 196 responses from 104 hospitals. The most widely adopted start-up ventilation mode was pressure-regulated volume-controlled mode. For acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), most of respondents reported full (39.8%) or partial compliance (58.1%) with the ARDSnet protocol, with PEEP settings being the commonest deviation. Prone positioning (99.0%), followed by recruitment manoeuvres (91.3%) were commonly used rescue measures during AHRF. APRV (55.7%), inhaled (51.3%) and systemic pulmonary vasodilators (44.1%) were also commonly used. Conservative oxygen targets (SaO2 of 88%–92%) were commonly adopted (70.6%). As a care bundle, intermittent ETT cuff pressure monitoring was more common (65.5%) than continuous cuff pressure monitoring (20.0%). Propofol and alfentanil were the most common initial sedative and analgesia (99.5% and 56.9%) respectively. Routine volatile anaesthetic use was rare. Conclusions: Our survey has shown significant variation of practice in common but crucial elements of management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. We hope the results in our survey highlight potential future areas of research. Collaborators South-coast Peri-operative Audit and Research Collaborative (SPARC) Severn Trainee Anaesthetic and Critical Care Research group (STAR) Collaborative research in Anaesthesia in the Northeast (CRANE)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.