Dataset Information

Effect of On-Demand vs Routine Nebulization of Acetylcysteine With Salbutamol on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:It remains uncertain whether nebulization of mucolytics with bronchodilators should be applied for clinical indication or preventively in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving invasive ventilation. Objective:To determine if a strategy that uses nebulization for clinical indication (on-demand) is noninferior to one that uses preventive (routine) nebulization. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized clinical trial enrolling adult patients expected to need invasive ventilation for more than 24 hours at 7 ICUs in the Netherlands. Interventions:On-demand nebulization of acetylcysteine or salbutamol (based on strict clinical indications, n?=?471) or routine nebulization of acetylcysteine with salbutamol (every 6 hours until end of invasive ventilation, n?=?473). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of -0.5 days. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, mortality rates, occurrence of pulmonary complications, and adverse events. Results:Nine hundred twenty-two patients (34% women; median age, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 54-75 years) were enrolled and completed follow-up. At 28 days, patients in the on-demand group had a median 21 (IQR, 0-26) ventilator-free days, and patients in the routine group had a median 20 (IQR, 0-26) ventilator-free days (1-sided 95% CI, -0.00003 to ?). There was no significant difference in length of stay or mortality, or in the proportion of patients developing pulmonary complications, between the 2 groups. Adverse events (13.8% vs 29.3%; difference, -15.5% [95% CI, -20.7% to -10.3%]; P?

SUBMITTER: van Meenen DMP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5885882 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of On-Demand vs Routine Nebulization of Acetylcysteine With Salbutamol on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

van Meenen David M P DMP van der Hoeven Sophia M SM Binnekade Jan M JM de Borgie Corianne A J M CAJM Merkus Maruschka P MP Bosch Frank H FH Endeman Henrik H Haringman Jasper J JJ van der Meer Nardo J M NJM Moeniralam Hazra S HS Slabbekoorn Mathilde M Muller Marcella C A MCA Stilma Willemke W van Silfhout Bart B Neto Ary Serpa AS Ter Haar Hans F M HFM Van Vliet Jan J Wijnhoven Jan Willem JW Horn Janneke J Juffermans Nicole P NP Pelosi Paolo P Gama de Abreu Marcelo M Schultz Marcus J MJ Paulus Frederique F

JAMA 20180301 10

<h4>Importance</h4>It remains uncertain whether nebulization of mucolytics with bronchodilators should be applied for clinical indication or preventively in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving invasive ventilation.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if a strategy that uses nebulization for clinical indication (on-demand) is noninferior to one that uses preventive (routine) nebulization.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Randomized clinical trial enrolling adult patients expected to ne ...[more]

PMID: 29486489

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDexmedetomidine provides sedation for patients undergoing ventilation; however, its effects on mortality and ventilator-free days have not been well studied among patients with sepsis.ObjectivesTo examine whether a sedation strategy with dexmedetomidine can improve clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis undergoing ventilation.Design, setting, and participantsOpen-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 8 intensive care units in Japan from February 2013 until January 2016 among 201 consecutive adult patients with sepsis requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either sedation with dexmedetomidine (n = 100) or sedation without dexmedetomidine (control group; n = 101). Other agents used in both groups were fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam.Main outcomes and measuresThe co-primary outcomes were mortality and ventilator-free days (over a 28-day duration). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (days 1, 2, 4, 6, 8), sedation control, occurrence of delirium and coma, intensive care unit stay duration, renal function, inflammation, and nutrition state were assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsOf the 203 screened patients, 201 were randomized. The mean age was 69 years (SD, 14 years); 63% were male. Mortality at 28 days was not significantly different in the dexmedetomidine group vs the control group (19 patients [22.8%] vs 28 patients [30.8%]; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.22; P = .20). Ventilator-free days over 28 days were not significantly different between groups (dexmedetomidine group: median, 20 [interquartile range, 5-24] days; control group: median, 18 [interquartile range, 0.5-23] days; P = .20). The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher rate of well-controlled sedation during mechanical ventilation (range, 17%-58% vs 20%-39%; P = .01); other outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Adverse events occurred in 8 (8%) and 3 (3%) patients in the dexmedetomidine and control groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the use of dexmedetomidine compared with no dexmedetomidine did not result in statistically significant improvement in mortality or ventilator-free days. However, the study may have been underpowered for mortality, and additional research may be needed to evaluate this further.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01760967.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is limited evidence on the impact of protocolized ventilator weaning in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome, despite utilization in clinical trials and clinical care. We aimed to determine whether protocolized ventilator weaning shortens mechanical ventilation duration and PICU length of stay in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors.DesignSecondary analysis of a prospective pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (Berlin definition) cohort from July 2011 to June 2019 analyzed using interrupted time series analysis pre- and postimplementations of a ventilator-weaning pathway. We compared duration of invasive ventilation and PICU length of stay in survivors before and after implementation of a ventilator-weaning pathway. We excluded PICU nonsurvivors and subjects with greater than 100 ventilator days.SettingLarge academic tertiary-care PICU.PatientsChildren with acute respiratory distress syndrome who survived to PICU discharge with less than or equal to 100 days of invasive mechanical ventilation.InterventionsImplementation of a ventilator-weaning pathway on May 2016.Measurements and main resultsOf 723 children with acute respiratory distress syndrome, 132 subjects died and six subjects with ventilation greater than 100 days were excluded. Of the remaining 585 subjects, 375 subjects had acute respiratory distress syndrome prior to pathway intervention and 210 after. Patients in the preintervention epoch were younger, more likely to have infectious acute respiratory distress syndrome, and had increased use of alternative ventilator modes. Pathway adoption was rapid and sustained. Controlling for temporality, pathway implementation was associated with a decrease of a median 3.6 ventilator days (95% CI, -5.4 to -1.7; p < 0.001). There was no change in the reintubation rates. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsVentilator-weaning pathway implementation shortened invasive ventilation duration in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors with no change in reintubation. The effect size of this intervention was comparable with those targeted in acute respiratory distress syndrome trials.

Project description:ImportanceIt remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ObjectiveTo determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands.InterventionsInvasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax.ResultsIn total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.

Project description:BackgroundInterferon (IFN) is widely used in clinical practice and nebulization inhalation is one of the commonly used routes of administration. However, nebulization drugs such as interferon-α (IFN-α) with large molecular weights may deposit in the membrane of the breathing filters, causing its resistance to gradually increase. Thus, our study explores the effect of IFN-α and other nebulization drugs on the resistance of breathing circuit filters under invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsWe divided 96 breathing filters into eight groups. The baseline group was not treated while the blank group was installed but were not nebulized. The remaining groups received jet nebulized or vibrating nebulized with either normal saline, Combivent, Amphotericin B, or IFN-α at a frequency of once every 12 hours separately and were removed from the breathing circuit after 24 hours. The resistance of the filter of each group was then measured and statistical comparisons were made.ResultsFilter resistance of the IFN-α jet nebulization group was greater than that of the other groups, and there were statistical differences except for the Amphotericin B jet nebulization group. Comparison of the resistance [cmH2O/(L·s)] of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the baseline group showed 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.26 (2.03, 2.40), P=0.037; of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the blank group showed 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.11 (1.98, 2.27), P=0.003; of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the normal saline group: 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.16 (2.08, 2.32), P=0.023; of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the Combivent jet nebulization group: 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.18 (2.14, 2.27), P=0.018; and of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the Amphotericin B jet nebulization group: 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.33 (2.05, 2.45), P=0.221. The effect of jet nebulization and vibrating mesh nebulization on the resistance of breathing filters showed no significant statistical difference.ConclusionsJet nebulization with IFN-α significantly increased the resistance of the breathing filter within 24 hours and there was no significant difference in filter resistance between jet nebulization and vibrating mesh nebulization of IFN-α or Amphotericin B.

Dataset Information

Effect of On-Demand vs Routine Nebulization of Acetylcysteine With Salbutamol on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Effect of On-Demand vs Routine Nebulization of Acetylcysteine With Salbutamol on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets