Search

BackgroundIt is unknown whether lung-protective ventilation is applied in burn patients and whether they benefit from it. This study aimed to determine ventilation practices in burn intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the association between lung-protective ventilation and the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28).MethodsThis is an international prospective observational cohort study including adult burn patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (V T) was defined as V T ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum airway pressures were collected. The association between V T and VFD-28 was analyzed using a competing risk model. Ventilation settings were presented for all patients, focusing on the first day of ventilation. We also compared ventilation settings between patients with and without inhalation trauma.ResultsA total of 160 patients from 28 ICUs in 16 countries were included. Low V T was used in 74% of patients, median V T size was 7.3 [interquartile range (IQR) 6.2-8.3] mL/kg PBW and did not differ between patients with and without inhalation trauma (p = 0.58). Median VFD-28 was 17 (IQR 0-26), without a difference between ventilation with low or high V T (p = 0.98). All patients were ventilated with PEEP levels ≥5 cmH2O; 80% of patients had maximum airway pressures

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva is the property of Associacao de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Rationale: Evidence from observational studies suggests that driving pressure is strongly associated with pulmonary injury and mortality, regardless of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels, tidal volume, or plateau pressure. Therefore, it is possible that targeting driving pressure may improve the safety of ventilation strategies for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the clinical effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy for ARDS has not been assessed in randomized controlled trials.Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of testing a driving pressure-limited strategy in comparison with a conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients with ARDS and a baseline driving pressure of ≥13 cm H2O.Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, nonblinded trial that included 31 patients with ARDS who were on invasive mechanical ventilation and had a driving pressure of ≥13 cm H2O. Patients allocated to the driving pressure-limited strategy were ventilated with volume-controlled or pressure-support ventilation modes, with tidal volume titrated to 4-8 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW), aiming at a driving pressure of 10 cm H2O, or the lowest possible. Patients in the control group were ventilated according to the ARDSNet (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network) protocol, using a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg PBW, which was allowed to be set down to 4 ml/kg PBW if the plateau pressure was >30 cm H2O. The primary endpoint was the driving pressure on Days 1-3.Results: Sixteen patients were randomized to the driving pressure-limited group and 15 were randomized to the conventional strategy group. All patients were considered in analyses. Most of the patients had mild ARDS with a mean arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of 215 (standard deviation [SD] = 95). The baseline driving pressure was 15.0 cm H2O (SD = 2.6) in both groups. In comparison with the conventional strategy, driving pressure from the first hour to the third day was 4.6 cm H2O lower in the driving pressure-limited group (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 2.8; P < 0.001). From the first hour up to the third day, tidal volume in the driving pressure-limited strategy group was kept lower than in the control group (mean difference [ml/kg of PBW], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 0.9; P < 0.001). We did not find statistically significant differences in the incidence of severe acidosis (pH < 7.10) within 7 days (absolute difference -12.1; 95% CI, -41.5 to -17.3) or any clinical secondary endpoint.Conclusions: In patients with ARDS, a trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy using very low tidal volumes versus a conventional ventilation strategy on clinical outcomes is feasible.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02365038). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva is the property of Associacao de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: It is unknown whether lung-protective ventilation is applied in burn patients and whether they benefit from it. This study aimed to determine ventilation practices in burn intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the association between lung-protective ventilation and the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28)., Methods: This is an international prospective observational cohort study including adult burn patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume ( V T ) was defined as V T  ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum airway pressures were collected. The association between V T and VFD-28 was analyzed using a competing risk model. Ventilation settings were presented for all patients, focusing on the first day of ventilation. We also compared ventilation settings between patients with and without inhalation trauma., Results: A total of 160 patients from 28 ICUs in 16 countries were included. Low V T was used in 74% of patients, median V T size was 7.3 [interquartile range (IQR) 6.2-8.3] mL/kg PBW and did not differ between patients with and without inhalation trauma ( p  = 0.58). Median VFD-28 was 17 (IQR 0-26), without a difference between ventilation with low or high V T ( p  = 0.98). All patients were ventilated with PEEP levels ≥5 cmH 2 O; 80% of patients had maximum airway pressures <30 cmH 2 O., Conclusion: In this international cohort study we found that lung-protective ventilation is used in the majority of burn patients, irrespective of the presence of inhalation trauma. Use of low V T was not associated with a reduction in VFD-28., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02312869. Date of registration: 9 December 2014., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)