Search

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suctioning causes discomfort, is associated with adverse effects, and is resource-demanding. An artificial secretion removal method, known as an automated cough, has been developed, which applies rapid, automated deflation, and inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff during the inspiratory phase of mechanical ventilation. This method has been evaluated in the hands of researchers but not when used by attending nurses. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of the method over the course of patient management as part of routine care. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal, interventional study recruited 28 subjects who were intubated and mechanically ventilated. For a maximum of 7 d and on clinical need for endotracheal suctioning, the automatic cough procedure was applied. The subjects were placed in a pressure-regulated ventilation mode with elevated inspiratory pressure, and automated cuff deflation and inflation were performed 3 times, with this repeated if deemed necessary. Success was determined by resolution of the clinical need for suctioning as determined by the attending nurse. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 84 procedures were performed. In 54% of the subjects, the artificial cough procedure was successful on > 70% of occasions, with 56% of all procedures considered successful. Ninety percent of all the procedures were performed in subjects who were spontaneously breathing and on pressure-support ventilation with peak inspiratory pressures of 20 cm H2O. Rates of adverse events were similar to those seen in the application of endotracheal suctioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study solely evaluated the efficacy of an automated artificial cough procedure, which illustrated the potential for reducing the need for endotracheal suctioning when applied by attending nurses in routine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non–invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT–COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was 'treatment failure', a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4–14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41–2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87–1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quantitative radiological scores for the extent and severity of pulmonary infiltrates based on chest radiography (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) scan are increasingly used in critically ill invasively ventilated patients. This study aimed to determine and compare the prognostic capacity of the Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) score and the chest CT Severity Score (CTSS) in a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Methods: Two-center retrospective observational study, including consecutive invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. Trained scorers calculated the RALE score of first available CXR and the CTSS of the first available CT scan. The primary outcome was ICU mortality; secondary outcomes were duration of ventilation in survivors, length of stay in ICU, and hospital-, 28-, and 90-day mortality. Prognostic accuracy for ICU death was expressed using odds ratios and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (AUROC). Results: A total of 82 patients were enrolled. The median RALE score (22 [15–37] vs. 26 [20–39]; p = 0.34) and the median CTSS (18 [16–21] vs. 21 [18–23]; p = 0.022) were both lower in ICU survivors compared to ICU non-survivors, although only the difference in CTSS reached statistical significance. While no association was observed between ICU mortality and RALE score (OR 1.35 [95%CI 0.64–2.84]; p = 0.417; AUC 0.50 [0.44–0.56], this was noticed with the CTSS (OR, 2.31 [1.22–4.38]; p = 0.010) although with poor prognostic capacity (AUC 0.64 [0.57–0.69]). The correlation between the RALE score and CTSS was weak (r2 = 0.075; p = 0.012). Conclusions: Despite poor prognostic capacity, only CTSS was associated with ICU mortality in our cohort of COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]