Dataset Information

Patient-ventilator asynchrony, impact on clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate lung injury and diaphragm mis-contraction. The impact of PVA on clinical outcomes has not been systematically evaluated. Effective interventions (except for closed-loop ventilation) for reducing PVA are not well established.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MV (Part A) and the effectiveness of interventions for patients undergoing MV except for closed-loop ventilation (Part B). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP until August 2020. In Part A, we defined asynchrony index (AI) ≥ 10 or ineffective triggering index (ITI) ≥ 10 as high PVA. We compared patients having high PVA with those having low PVA.

Results

Eight studies in Part A and eight trials in Part B fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In Part A, five studies were related to the AI and three studies were related to the ITI. High PVA may be associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 5.16 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38 to 7.94; n = 8; certainty of evidence [CoE], low), higher ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.73; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.24; n = 6; CoE, low), and higher hospital mortality (OR, 1.94; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.30; n = 5; CoE, low). In Part B, interventions involving MV mode, tidal volume, and pressure-support level were associated with reduced PVA. Sedation protocol, sedation depth, and sedation with dexmedetomidine rather than propofol were also associated with reduced PVA.

Conclusions

PVA may be associated with longer MV duration, higher ICU mortality, and higher hospital mortality. Physicians may consider monitoring PVA and adjusting ventilator settings and sedatives to reduce PVA. Further studies with adjustment for confounding factors are warranted to determine the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes. Trial registration protocols.io (URL: https://www.protocols.io/view/the-impact-of-patient-ventilator-asynchrony-in-adu-bsqtndwn , 08/27/2020).

SUBMITTER: Kyo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-ventilator asynchrony is common in mechanically ventilated patients and may be related to adverse outcomes. Few studies have reported the occurrence of asynchrony in brain-injured patients. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, type and severity of patient-ventilator asynchrony in mechanically ventilated patients with brain injury. METHODS:This prospective observational study enrolled acute brain-injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Esophageal pressure monitoring was established after enrollment. Flow, airway pressure, and esophageal pressure-time waveforms were recorded for a 15-min interval, four times daily for 3 days, for visually detecting asynchrony by offline analysis. At the end of each dataset recording, the respiratory drive was determined by the airway occlusion maneuver. The asynchrony index was calculated to represent the severity. The relationship between the prevalence and the severity of asynchrony with ventilatory modes and settings, respiratory drive, and analgesia and sedation were determined. Association of severe patient-ventilator asynchrony, which was defined as an asynchrony index ???10%, with clinical outcomes was analyzed. RESULTS:In 100 enrolled patients, a total of 1076 15-min waveform datasets covering 330,292 breaths were collected, in which 70,156 (38%) asynchronous breaths were detected. Asynchrony occurred in 96% of patients with the median (interquartile range) asynchrony index of 12.4% (4.3%-26.4%). The most prevalent type was ineffective triggering. No significant difference was found in either prevalence or asynchrony index among different classifications of brain injury (p?>?0.05). The prevalence of asynchrony was significantly lower during pressure control/assist ventilation than during other ventilatory modes (p?<?0.05). Compared to the datasets without asynchrony, the airway occlusion pressure was significantly lower in datasets with ineffective triggering (p?<?0.001). The asynchrony index was significantly higher during the combined use of opioids and sedatives (p?<?0.001). Significantly longer duration of ventilation and hospital length of stay after the inclusion were found in patients with severe ineffective triggering (p?<?0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Patient-ventilator asynchrony is common in brain-injured patients. The most prevalent type is ineffective triggering and its severity is likely related to a long duration of ventilation and hospital stay. Prevalence and severity of asynchrony are associated with ventilatory modes, respiratory drive and analgesia/sedation strategy, suggesting treatment adjustment in this particular population. Trial registration The study has been registered on 4 July 2017 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03212482) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03212482 ).

Project description:Introduction and aim:Studies regarding asynchrony in patients in the cardiac postoperative period are still only a few. The main objective of our study was to compare asynchronies incidence and its index (AI) in 3 different modes of ventilation (volume-controlled ventilation [VCV], pressure-controlled ventilation [PCV] and pressure-support ventilation [PSV]) after ICU admission for postoperative care. Methods:A prospective parallel randomised trialin the setting of a non-profitable hospital in Brazil. The participants were patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to VCV or PCV modes of ventilation and later both groups were transitioned to PSV mode. Results:All data were recorded for 5 minutes in each of the three different phases: T1) in assisted breath, T2) initial spontaneous breath and T3) final spontaneous breath, a marking point prior to extubation. Asynchronies were detected and counted by visual inspection method by two independent investigators. Reliability, inter-rater agreement of asynchronies, asynchronies incidence, total and specific asynchrony indexes (AIt and AIspecific) and odds of AI ?10% weighted by total asynchrony were analysed. A total of 17 patients randomly allocated to the VCV (n=9) or PCV (n=8) group completed the study. High inter-rated agreement for AIt (ICC 0.978; IC95%, 0,963-0.987) and good reliability (r=0.945; p<0.001) were found. Eighty-two % of patients presented asynchronies, although only 7% of their total breathing cycles were asynchronous. Early cycling and double triggering had the highest rates of asynchrony with no difference between groups. The highest odds of AI ?10% were observed in VCV regardless the phase: OR 2.79 (1.36-5.73) in T1 vs T2, p=0.005; OR 2.61 (1.27-5.37) in T1 vs T3, p=0.009 and OR 4.99 (2.37-10.37) in T2 vs T3, p<0.001. Conclusions:There was a high incidence of breathing asynchrony in postoperative cardiac patients, especially when initially ventilated in VCV. VCV group had a higher chance of AI ?10% and this chance remained high in the following PSV phases.

Project description:Patient activation interventions (PAIs) engage patients in care by promoting increased knowledge, confidence, and/or skills for disease self-management. However, little is known about the impact of these interventions on a wide range of outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes (DM2), or which of these interventions, if any, have the greatest impact on glycemic control.Electronic databases were searched from inception through November 2011. Of 16,290 citations, two independent reviewers identified 138 randomized trials comparing PAIs to usual care/control groups in adults with DM2 that reported intermediate or long-term outcomes or harms. For meta-analyses of continuous outcomes, we used a random-effects model to derive pooled weighted mean differences (WMD). For all-cause mortality, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) using Peto's method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I (2) statistic and conducted meta-regression using a random-effects model when I (2)?>?50 %. A priori meta-regression primary variables included: intervention strategies, intervention leader, baseline outcome value, quality, and study duration.PAIs modestly reduced intermediate outcomes [A1c: WMD 0.37 %, CI 0.28-0.45 %, I (2) 83 %; SBP: WMD 2.2 mmHg, CI 1.0-3.5 mmHg, I (2) 72 %; body weight: WMD 2.3 lbs, CI 1.3-3.2 lbs, I (2) 64 %; and LDL-c: WMD 4.2 mg/dL, CI 1.5-6.9 mg/dL, I (2) 64 %]. The evidence was moderate for A1c, low/very low for other intermediate outcomes, low for long-term mortality and very low for complications. Interventions had no effect on hypoglycemia (evidence: low) or short-term mortality (evidence: moderate). Higher baseline A1c, pharmacist-led interventions, and longer follow-up were associated with larger A1c improvements. No intervention strategy outperformed any other in adjusted meta-regression.PAIs modestly improve A1c in adults with DM2 without increasing short-term mortality. These results support integration of these interventions into primary care for adults with uncontrolled glycemia, and provide evidence to insurers who do not yet cover these programs.