Dataset Information

Decision support system to evaluate ventilation in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (DeVENT study)-trial protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occurs in response to a variety of insults, and mechanical ventilation is life-saving in this setting, but ventilator-induced lung injury can also contribute to the morbidity and mortality in the condition. The Beacon Caresystem is a model-based bedside decision support system using mathematical models tuned to the individual patient's physiology to advise on appropriate ventilator settings. Personalised approaches using individual patient description may be particularly advantageous in complex patients, including those who are difficult to mechanically ventilate and wean, in particular ARDS.

Methods

We will conduct a multi-centre international randomised, controlled, allocation concealed, open, pragmatic clinical trial to compare mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients following application of the Beacon Caresystem to that of standard routine care to investigate whether use of the system results in a reduction in driving pressure across all severities and phases of ARDS.

Discussion

Despite 20 years of clinical trial data showing significant improvements in ARDS mortality through mitigation of ventilator-induced lung injury, there remains a gap in its personalised application at the bedside. Importantly, the protective effects of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were noted only when there were associated decreases in driving pressure. Hence, the pressures set on the ventilator should be determined by the diseased lungs' pressure-volume relationship which is often unknown or difficult to determine. Knowledge of extent of recruitable lung could improve the ventilator driving pressure. Hence, personalised management demands the application of mechanical ventilation according to the physiological state of the diseased lung at that time. Hence, there is significant rationale for the development of point-of-care clinical decision support systems which help personalise ventilatory strategy according to the current physiology. Furthermore, the potential for the application of the Beacon Caresystem to facilitate local and remote management of large numbers of ventilated patients (as seen during this COVID-19 pandemic) could change the outcome of mechanically ventilated patients during the course of this and future pandemics.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04115709. Registered on 4 October 2019, version 4.0.

SUBMITTER: Patel B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762446 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Although pediatric intensivists philosophically embrace lung protective ventilation for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, we hypothesized that ventilator management varies. We assessed ventilator management by evaluating changes to ventilator settings in response to blood gases, pulse oximetry, or end-tidal CO2. We also assessed the potential impact that a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol adapted from National Heart Lung and Blood Institute acute respiratory distress syndrome network protocols could have on reducing variability by comparing actual changes in ventilator settings to those recommended by the protocol. DESIGN:Prospective observational study. SETTING:Eight tertiary care U.S. PICUs, October 2011 to April 2012. PATIENTS:One hundred twenty patients (age range 17 d to 18 yr) with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Two thousand hundred arterial and capillary blood gases, 3,964 oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry, and 2,757 end-tidal CO2 values were associated with 3,983 ventilator settings. Ventilation mode at study onset was pressure control 60%, volume control 19%, pressure-regulated volume control 18%, and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation 3%. Clinicians changed FIO2 by ±5 or ±10% increments every 8 hours. Positive end-expiratory pressure was limited at ~10?cm H2O as oxygenation worsened, lower than would have been recommended by the protocol. In the first 72 hours of mechanical ventilation, maximum tidal volume/kg using predicted versus actual body weight was 10.3 (8.5-12.9) (median [interquartile range]) versus 9.2?mL/kg (7.6-12.0) (p < 0.001). Intensivists made changes similar to protocol recommendations 29% of the time, opposite to the protocol's recommendation 12% of the time and no changes 56% of the time. CONCLUSIONS:Ventilator management varies substantially in children with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Opportunities exist to minimize variability and potentially injurious ventilator settings by using a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol offering adequately explicit instructions for given clinical situations. An accepted protocol could also reduce confounding by mechanical ventilation management in a clinical trial.

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:To determine the frequency of low-tidal volume ventilation in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and assess if any demographic or clinical factors improve low-tidal volume ventilation adherence.Descriptive post hoc analysis of four multicenter pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome studies.Twenty-six academic PICU.Three hundred fifteen pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.All patients who received conventional mechanical ventilation at hours 0 and 24 of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome who had data to calculate ideal body weight were included. Two cutoff points for low-tidal volume ventilation were assessed: less than or equal to 6.5?mL/kg of ideal body weight and less than or equal to 8?mL/kg of ideal body weight. Of 555 patients, we excluded 240 for other respiratory support modes or missing data. The remaining 315 patients had a median PaO2-to-FIO2 ratio of 140 (interquartile range, 90-201), and there were no differences in demographics between those who did and did not receive low-tidal volume ventilation. With tidal volume cutoff of less than or equal to 6.5?mL/kg of ideal body weight, the adherence rate was 32% at hour 0 and 33% at hour 24. A low-tidal volume ventilation cutoff of tidal volume less than or equal to 8?mL/kg of ideal body weight resulted in an adherence rate of 58% at hour 0 and 60% at hour 24. Low-tidal volume ventilation use was no different by severity of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome nor did adherence improve over time. At hour 0, overweight children were less likely to receive low-tidal volume ventilation less than or equal to 6.5?mL/kg ideal body weight (11% overweight vs 38% nonoverweight; p = 0.02); no difference was noted by hour 24. Furthermore, in the overweight group, using admission weight instead of ideal body weight resulted in misclassification of up to 14% of patients as receiving low-tidal volume ventilation when they actually were not.Low-tidal volume ventilation is underused in the first 24 hours of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Age, Pediatric Risk of Mortality-III, and pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome severity were not associated with improved low-tidal volume ventilation adherence nor did adherence improve over time. Overweight children were less likely to receive low-tidal volume ventilation strategies in the first day of illness.