Clinical Policies and Procedures for Critical Care Transport during a Respiratory Pandemic

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic of 2020-2021 created unprecedented challenges for clinicians in critical care transport (CCT). These CCT services had to rapidly adjust their clinical approaches to evolving patient demographics, a preponderance of respiratory failure, and transport utilization stratagem. Organizations had to develop and implement new protocols and guidelines in rapid succession, often without the education and training that would have been involved pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These changes were complicated by the need to protect crew members as well as to optimize patient care. Clinical initiatives included developing an awake proning transport protocol and a protocol to transport intubated proned patients. One service developed a protocol for helmet ventilation to minimize aerosolization risks for patients on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). While these clinical protocols were developed specifically for COVID-19, the growth in practice will enhance the care of patients with other causes of respiratory failure. Additionally, these processes will apply to future respiratory epidemics and pandemics.

Download Full-text

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Respiratory Failure due to Severe Acute Pancreatitis

Respiration ◽

10.1159/000088897 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 73 (2) ◽

pp. 166-172 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Samir Jaber ◽

Gérald Chanques ◽

Mustapha Sebbane ◽

Farida Salhi ◽

Jean-Marc Delay ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Pancreatitis ◽

Respiratory Failure ◽

Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽

Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Positive Pressure

Download Full-text

Comparative study between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure

QJM ◽

10.1093/qjmed/hcab086.039 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Mohammed N Al Shafi'i ◽

Doaa M. Kamal El-din ◽

Mohammed A. Abdulnaiem Ismaiel ◽

Hesham M Abotiba

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Respiratory Failure ◽

Acute Respiratory Failure ◽

Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Positive Pressure ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been increasingly used in the management of respiratory failure in intensive care unit (ICU). Aim of the Work is to compare the efficacy and resource consumption of NIPPMV delivered through face mask against invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) delivered by endotracheal tube in the management of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Patients and Methods This prospective randomized controlled study included 78 adults with acute respiratory failure who were admitted to the intensive care unit. The enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive either noninvasive ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). Results Severity of illness, measured by the simplified acute physiologic score 3 (SAPS 3), were comparable between the two patient groups with no significant difference between them. Both study groups showed a comparable steady improvement in PaO2:FiO2 values, indicating that NIPPV is as effective as CMV in improving the oxygenation of patients with ARF. The PaCO2 and pH values gradually improved in both groups during the 48 hours of ventilation. 12 hours after ventilation, NIPPMV group showed significantly more improvement in PaCO2 and pH than the CMV group. The respiratory acidosis was corrected in the NIPPV group after 24 hours of ventilation compared with 36 hours in the CMV group. NIPPV in this study was associated with a lower frequency of complications than CMV, including ventilator acquired pneumonia (VAP), sepsis, renal failure, pulmonary embolism, and pancreatitis. However, only VAP showed a statistically significant difference. Patients who underwent NIPPV in this study had lower mortality, and lower ventilation time and length of ICU stay, compared with patients on CMV. Intubation was required for less than a third of patients who initially underwent NIV. Conclusion Based on our study findings, NIPPV appears to be a potentially effective and safe therapeutic modality for managing patients with ARF.

Download Full-text