Mechanical ventilation in critically ill burn patient with inhalation injury: Can we avoid it?

Burn patients are a unique population when considering strategies for ventilatory support. Frequent surgical operations, inhalation injury, pneumonia, and long durations of mechanical ventilation add to the challenging physiology of severe burn injury. We aim to provide a practical and evidence-based review of mechanical ventilation strategies for the critically ill burn patient that is tailored to the bedside clinician.

Download Full-text

Sleep in Critically Ill Chemically Paralyzed Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation

Yearbook of Critical Care Medicine ◽

10.1016/s0734-3299(08)70410-6 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 2007 ◽

pp. 288-289

Author(s):

C.E. Bekes

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Critically Ill

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.1855959.3703054 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Tarek Sharshar

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Randomised Trial

Download Full-text

111 Burn Sepsis Screening Tool to Facilitate Diagnosis of Burn Sepsis

Journal of Burn Care & Research ◽

10.1093/jbcr/irab032.115 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S74-S75

Author(s):

Kaitlyn Libraro ◽

Palmer Bessey ◽

Jamie Heffernan ◽

James Gallagher

Keyword(s):

Critically Ill ◽

Screening Tool ◽

Burn Injury ◽

Clinical Signs ◽

Case Fatality ◽

Inhalation Injury ◽

Clinical Feature ◽

Sepsis Diagnosis ◽

Acute Decompensation ◽

Sepsis Screening

Abstract Introduction Sepsis following critical burn injury is an ominous development that can lead to death. Most patients will manifest a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), even without being septic. This may obscure the clinical recognition of developing sepsis and delay the initiation of effective treatment. We developed a burn sepsis screening tool (BSST) to facilitate the recognition of developing burn sepsis. The purpose of this study was to review the utility of that tool. Methods The BSST was based on several clinical signs, laboratory values, and changes in physiologic support modalities associated with sepsis. It consisted of nine parameters that could be scored as indicating or not indicating sepsis or not applicable. If three were positive, the patient was identified as septic, and a search for a septic source was undertaken and treatment initiated. The BSST was completed on patients judged to be critically ill during morning rounds over a period of nine months. The values were transcribed into a secure web database and analyzed using SAS 9.4. Results There were 593 individual encounters on 31 critically ill patients with burns and/or inhalation injury for which the BSST was completed. The mean age of the patients was 57 ± 4 years (Mean ± SEM), and the burn size was 24 ± 15 % TBSA. Eleven patients were women (36%) and 7 patients had inhalation injury (23%). The expected case fatality was 21 - 30% depending on the statistical model used. Six patients (19%) died. The length of stay was 64 ± 10 days and ranged from 3 to 267 days. A patient was judged to be septic in only 45 of the daily encounters (8.0 % ± 1.1). There were 21 instances of a new septic event made in 12 patients. Episode of sepsis separated by at least 5 days of no sepsis, were considered to be a new septic event. There was a substantial amount of data that was missing or not applicable. There were no significant differences in the septic parameters on days with new sepsis diagnosis when compared to the day prior, or compared to all encounters in patients that were never septic. Patients deteriorated acutely between BSST completions on only two occasions and both were stabilized. Conclusions The BSST was used consistently to help evaluate the daily status of critically ill burn injured patients. The expected case fatality of the group was moderately high, based on statistical models derived from the ABA Burn Registry. The observed outcome was as good as or better than predicted. Acute decompensation was rare. The BSST added daily administrative work to rounds, and the data recorded were often incomplete. Although the BSST did not demonstrate any single clinical feature that identified the transition from SIRS to sepsis, it did add structure and rigor to daily rounds. That contributed to the effectiveness of rounds, and it may have been responsible, in part, for the favorable outcomes.

Download Full-text

Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies

Critical Care ◽

10.1186/s13054-021-03540-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eleni Papoutsi ◽

Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽

Eleni Xourgia ◽

Christina Routsi ◽

Anastasia Kotanidou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mortality And Morbidity ◽

Icu Admission ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Detectable Difference

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of anaesthesia ventilator use for mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

British Journal of Anaesthesia ◽

10.1016/j.bja.2021.04.001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Aurélie GOUEL-CHERON ◽

Yoann ELMALEH ◽

Camille COUFFIGNAL ◽

Elie KANTOR ◽

Simon MESLIN ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients

Download Full-text

Etiology, incidence, and outcomes of patient–ventilator asynchrony in critically-ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-90013-z ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yongfang Zhou ◽

Steven R. Holets ◽

Man Li ◽

Gustavo A. Cortes-Puentes ◽

Todd J. Meyer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Surgical Intensive Care ◽

Mechanically Ventilated ◽

History Of ◽

Training Background ◽

The Relationship

AbstractPatient–ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is commonly encountered during mechanical ventilation of critically ill patients. Estimates of PVA incidence vary widely. Type, risk factors, and consequences of PVA remain unclear. We aimed to measure the incidence and identify types of PVA, characterize risk factors for development, and explore the relationship between PVA and outcome among critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to medical, surgical, and medical-surgical intensive care units in a large academic institution staffed with varying provider training background. A single center, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥ 12 h. A total of 676 patients who underwent 696 episodes of mechanical ventilation were included. Overall PVA occurred in 170 (24%) episodes. Double triggering 92(13%) was most common, followed by flow starvation 73(10%). A history of smoking, and pneumonia, sepsis, or ARDS were risk factors for overall PVA and double triggering (all P < 0.05). Compared with volume targeted ventilation, pressure targeted ventilation decreased the occurrence of events (all P < 0.01). During volume controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure targeted ventilation, ventilator settings were associated with the incidence of overall PVA. The number of overall PVA, as well as double triggering and flow starvation specifically, were associated with worse outcomes and fewer hospital-free days (all P < 0.01). Double triggering and flow starvation are the most common PVA among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Overall incidence as well as double triggering and flow starvation PVA specifically, portend worse outcome.

Download Full-text

Selection strategy for sedation depth in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making ◽

10.1186/s12911-021-01452-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (S2) ◽

Author(s):

Longxiang Su ◽

Chun Liu ◽

Fengxiang Chang ◽

Bo Tang ◽

Lin Han ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Dimensionality Reduction ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Latent Profile Analysis ◽

Profile Analysis ◽

Mechanically Ventilated ◽

Mechanically Ventilated Patients ◽

Sedation And Analgesia ◽

Ventilated Patients

Abstract Background Analgesia and sedation therapy are commonly used for critically ill patients, especially mechanically ventilated patients. From the initial nonsedation programs to deep sedation and then to on-demand sedation, the understanding of sedation therapy continues to deepen. However, according to different patient’s condition, understanding the individual patient’s depth of sedation needs remains unclear. Methods The public open source critical illness database Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III was used in this study. Latent profile analysis was used as a clustering method to classify mechanically ventilated patients based on 36 variables. Principal component analysis dimensionality reduction was used to select the most influential variables. The ROC curve was used to evaluate the classification accuracy of the model. Results Based on 36 characteristic variables, we divided patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and sedation and analgesia into two categories with different mortality rates, then further reduced the dimensionality of the data and obtained the 9 variables that had the greatest impact on classification, most of which were ventilator parameters. According to the Richmond-ASS scores, the two phenotypes of patients had different degrees of sedation and analgesia, and the corresponding ventilator parameters were also significantly different. We divided the validation cohort into three different levels of sedation, revealing that patients with high ventilator conditions needed a deeper level of sedation, while patients with low ventilator conditions required reduction in the depth of sedation as soon as possible to promote recovery and avoid reinjury. Conclusion Through latent profile analysis and dimensionality reduction, we divided patients treated with mechanical ventilation and sedation and analgesia into two categories with different mortalities and obtained 9 variables that had the greatest impact on classification, which revealed that the depth of sedation was limited by the condition of the respiratory system.

Download Full-text

Tips and Pearls for Tracheostomy during the Covid-19 Pandemic

International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1731723 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 25 (03) ◽

pp. e459-e462

Author(s):

Darwin Kaushal ◽

Shilpa Goyal ◽

Nithin Prakasan Nair ◽

Kapil Soni ◽

Bikram Choudhury ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Present Article ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Current Literature ◽

Literature Search ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Early Tracheostomy ◽

Life Saving ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Elective Tracheostomy

AbstractThe number of critically-ill coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) patients requiring mechanical ventilation is on the rise. Most guidelines suggest keeping the patient intubated and delay elective tracheostomy. Although the current literature does not support early tracheostomy, the number of patients undergoing it is increasing. During the pandemic, it is important that surgeons and anesthesiologists know the different aspects of tracheostomy in terms of indication, procedure, tube care and complications. A literature search was performed to identify different guidelines and available evidence on tracheostomy in Covid-19 patients. The purpose of the present article is to generate an essential scientific evidence for life-saving tracheostomy procedures.

Download Full-text