Dataset Information

Impact of sex on use of low tidal volume ventilation in invasively ventilated ICU patients-A mediation analysis using two observational cohorts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies in patients receiving invasive ventilation show important differences in use of low tidal volume (VT) ventilation (LTVV) between females and males. The aims of this study were to describe temporal changes in VT and to determine what factors drive the sex difference in use of LTVV.

Methods and findings

This is a posthoc analysis of 2 large longitudinal projects in 59 ICUs in the United States, the 'Medical information Mart for Intensive Care III' (MIMIC III) and the 'eICU Collaborative Research DataBase'. The proportion of patients under LTVV (median VT < 8 ml/kg PBW), was the primary outcome. Mediation analysis, a method to dissect total effect into direct and indirect effects, was used to understand which factors drive the sex difference. We included 3614 (44%) females and 4593 (56%) males. Median VT declined over the years, but with a persistent difference between females (from median 10.2 (9.1 to 11.4) to 8.2 (7.5 to 9.1) ml/kg PBW) vs. males (from median 9.2 [IQR 8.2 to 10.1] to 7.3 [IQR 6.6 to 8.0] ml/kg PBW) (P < .001). In females versus males, use of LTVV increased from 5 to 50% versus from 12 to 78% (difference, -27% [-29% to -25%]; P < .001). The sex difference was mainly driven by patients' body height and actual body weight (adjusted average causal mediation effect, -30% [-33% to -27%]; P < .001, and 4 [3% to 4%]; P < .001).

Conclusions

While LTVV is increasingly used in females and males, females continue to receive LTVV less often than males. The sex difference is mainly driven by patients' body height and actual body weight, and not necessarily by sex. Use of LTVV in females could improve by paying more attention to a correct calculation of VT, i.e., using the correct body height.

SUBMITTER: Swart P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279424 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak.MethodsPRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342).FindingsBetween March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7-7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0-15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2-16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0-39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation.InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19.FundingAmsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.

Project description:PURPOSE:Acute lung injury is a life threatening condition often requiring mechanical ventilation. Lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW, calculated on the basis of a patient's sex and height), is part of current recommended ventilation strategy. Hence, an exact height is necessary to provide optimal mechanical ventilation. However, it is a common practice to visually estimate the body height of mechanically ventilated patients and use these estimates as a reference size for ventilator settings. We aimed to determine if the common practice of estimating visual height to define tidal volume reduces the possibility of receiving lung-protective ventilation. METHODS:In this prospective observational study, 28 mechanically ventilated patients had their heights visually estimated by 20 nurses and 20 physicians. All medical professionals calculated the PBW and a corresponding tidal volume with 6 ml/kg/PBW on the basis of their visual estimation. The patients' true heights were measured and the true PBW with a corresponding tidal volume was calculated. Finally, estimates and measurements were compared. RESULTS:1033 estimations were undertaken by 153 medical professionals. The majority of the estimates were imprecise and resulting data comprised taller body heights, higher PBW and higher tidal volumes (all p?0.01). When estimates of patients´ heights are used as a reference for tidal-volume definition, patients are exposed to mean tidal volumes of 6.5 ± 0.4 ml/kg/PBW. 526 estimation-based tidal volumes (51.1%) did not provide lung-protective ventilation. Shorter subjects (<175cm) were a specific risk group with an increased risk of not receiving lung protective ventilation (OR 6.6; 95%CI 1.2-35.4; p = 0.02), while taller subjects had a smaller risk of being exposed to inadequately high tidal volumes (OR 0.15; 95%CI 0.02-0.8; p = 0.02). Furthermore, we found an increased risk of overestimating if the assessor was a female (OR 1.74; 95%CI 1.14-2.65; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION:The common practice of visually estimating body height and using these estimates for ventilator settings is imprecise and potentially harmful because it reduces the chance of receiving lung-protective ventilation. Avoiding this practice increases the patient safety. Instead, height should be measured as a standard procedure.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Low tidal volume ventilation lowers mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Previous studies reported poor low tidal volume ventilation implementation. We sought to determine the rate, quality, and predictors of low tidal volume ventilation use. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING:One academic and three community hospitals in the Chicago region. PATIENTS:A total of 362 adults meeting the Berlin Definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome consecutively admitted between June and December 2013. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Seventy patients (19.3%) were treated with low tidal volume ventilation (tidal volume < 6.5?mL/kg predicted body weight) at some time during mechanical ventilation. In total, 22.2% of patients requiring an FIO2 greater than 40% and 37.3% of patients with FIO2 greater than 40% and plateau pressure greater than 30?cm H2O received low tidal volume ventilation. The entire cohort received low tidal volume ventilation 11.4% of the time patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among patients who received low tidal volume ventilation, the mean (SD) percentage of acute respiratory distress syndrome time it was used was 59.1% (38.2%), and 34% waited more than 72 hours prior to low tidal volume ventilation initiation. Women were less likely to receive low tidal volume ventilation, whereas sepsis and FIO2 greater than 40% were associated with increased odds of low tidal volume ventilation use. Four attending physicians (6.2%) initiated low tidal volume ventilation within 1 day of acute respiratory distress syndrome onset for greater than or equal to 50% of their patients, whereas 34 physicians (52.3%) never initiated low tidal volume ventilation within 1 day of acute respiratory distress syndrome onset. In total, 54.4% of patients received a tidal volume less than 8?mL/kg predicted body weight, and the mean tidal volume during the first 72 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset was never less than 8?mL/kg predicted body weight. CONCLUSIONS:More than 12 years after publication of the landmark low tidal volume ventilation study, use remains poor. Interventions that improve adoption of low tidal volume ventilation are needed.

Project description:Introduction: The ideal ventilation strategy for patients with massive brain damage requires better elucidation. We hypothesized that in the presence of massive brain injury, a ventilation strategy using low (6 mL/kg) tidal volume (VT) ventilation with open lung positive end-expiratory pressure set according to the minimal static elastance of the respiratory system (LVT/OLPEEP), attenuate the impact of massive brain damage on gas-exchange, respiratory mechanics, lung histology and whole genome alterations compared with high (12 mL/kg) VT and low PEEP ventilation (HVT/LPEEP). Methods: Twenty-eight adult male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) no brain damage (NBD) with LVT/OLPEEP; 2) NBD with HVT/LPEEP; 3) brain damage (BD) with LVT/OLPEEP; and 4) BD with HVT/LPEEP. All animals were mechanically ventilated for six hours. Brain damage was induced by an inflated balloon catheter into the epidural space. Hemodynamics was recorded and blood gas analysis was performed hourly. At the end of the experiment, respiratory system mechanics and lung histology were analysed. Whole genome analysis was performed using Affimetrix gene chips and confirmatory real-time PCR. Results: In NBD, both LVT/OLPEEP and HVT/LPEEP did not affect arterial blood gases, as well as whole genome expression changes and real-time PCR. In BD, LVT/OLPEEP, compared to HVT/LPEEP, reduced lung damage according to histology, genome analysis and real-time PCR with decreased interleukin (IL-6), cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant (CINC)-1 and angiopoietin-4 expressions. LVT/OLPEEP compared to HVT/LPEEP improved overall survival. Conclusions: In BD, LVT/OLPEEP minimizes lung morpho-functional changes and inflammation compared to HVT/LPEEP. LVT/OLPEEP might represent a suitable ventilatory strategy in massive brain damage. 24 Wistar rats - lung samples, 4 groups, 1. non-braindamaged/braindead high tidal volume ventilation, 2. non-braindamaged/braindead best PEEP ventilation, 3. Braindamaged/braindead high tidal volume ventilation, 4. Braindamaged/braindead best PEEP ventilation

Project description:BACKGROUND:We observed that increasing fresh gas flow (FGF) decreased exhaled tidal volume (VT) during pressure control ventilation (PCV). A literature search produced no such description whereby unintended VT changes occur with FGF changes during PCV. METHODS:To model an infant's lungs, 1 lung of a mechanical lung model (Dual Adult TTL 1600; Michigan Instruments, Inc, Grand Rapids, MI) was set at a compliance of 0.0068 L/cm H2O. An Rp50 resistor (27.2 cm H2O/L/s at 15 L/min) simulated normal bronchial resistance. The simulated lung was connected to a pediatric breathing circuit via a 3.5-mm cuffed endotracheal tube. A ventilator with PCV capability (Model 7900; Aestiva, GE Healthcare, Madison, WI) measured exhaled VT, and a flow monitor (NICO; Respironics, Murraysville, PA) measured peak inspiratory flow, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and peak inspiratory pressure. In PCV mode, exhaled VT displayed by the ventilator at FGF rates of 1, 6, 10, and 15 L/min was manually recorded across multiple ventilator settings. This protocol was repeated for the Avance CS2 anesthesia machine (GE Healthcare). RESULTS:For the Aestiva, higher FGF rates in PCV mode decreased exhaled VT. Exhaled VT for FGFs of 1, 6, 10, and 15 L/min were on average 48, 34.9, 16.5, and 10 mL, respectively, at ventilator settings of inspiratory pressure of 10 cm H2O, PEEP of 0 cm H2O, and respiratory rate of 20 breaths/min. This is a decrease by up to 27%, 65.6%, and 79.2% when FGFs of 6, 10, and 15 L/min are compared with a FGF of 1 L/min, respectively. In the GE Avance CS2 at the same ventilator settings, VT for FGF rates of 1, 6, 10, and 15 L/min were on average 46, 43, 40.4, and 39.7 mL, respectively. The FGF effect on VT was not as pronounced with the GE Avance CS2 as with the GE Aestiva. CONCLUSIONS:FGF has a significant effect on VT during PCV in the Aestiva bellows ventilator, suggesting caution when changing FGF during PCV in infants. Our hypothesis is that at higher FGF rates, an inadvertent PEEP is developed by the flow resistance of the ventilator relief valve that is not recognized by the ventilator. In turn, less change in pressure is needed to reach the set inspiratory pressure, resulting in lower VT delivery at higher FGF rates. This underappreciated FGF-VT interaction during PCV with a bellows ventilator may be clinically significant in pediatric patients; prospective data collection in patients is needed for further evaluation.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Low tidal volume (= tidal volume ? 6?mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints. DESIGN:We designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5?mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was PaO2/FIO2 on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms. SETTING:Four Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs. PATIENTS:Adult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:Low tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6?mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8-9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2-7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 PaO2/ FIO2 (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax. CONCLUSIONS:Airway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12?mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.