Dyspnea In Mechanically Ventilated Critically-ill Patients: Prevalence And Risk Factors

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthieu Schmidt ◽  
Alexandre Demoule ◽  
Andrea Polito ◽  
Raphael Porchet ◽  
Jerome Aboab ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated

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

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.

scholarly journals Nurses' Use of Non?pharmacological Interventions in Managing Common Risk Factors of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 01-04
Author(s):  
Nahla Khalil
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated Patients ◽  
Common Risk Factors ◽  
Ventilated Patients

Incidence of delirium represented 32.3% since long in ICU settings, it might be higher. Other research showed the prevalence of delirium as high as 77% in ventilated burn patients. Incidence of delirium represented 32.3% since long in ICU settings, it might be higher. Other research showed the prevalence of delirium as high as 77% in ventilated burn patients. The incidence of delirium in the ICU ranged from 45% to 87%, this ratio appeared be different to the studied population exclusively to mechanically ventilated patients.

scholarly journals Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony in Critically-Ill Adult Patients Undergoing Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcomes

2020 ◽  
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 ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Incidence Risk ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background: Patient-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.Methods: A single center, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥12 hours.Results: 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).Conclusion: 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.

scholarly journals Secondary infections in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: An overlooked matter?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Suarez-de-la-Rica ◽  
◽  
Patricia Serrano ◽  
Rodrigo de-la-Oliva ◽  
Pedro Sánchez-Díaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Secondary Infection ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Secondary Infections ◽  
Nosocomial Bacteremia

Introduction. The susceptibility to infection probably increases in COVID-19 patients due to a combination of virusand drug-induced immunosuppression. The reported rate of secondary infections was quite low in previous studies. The objectives of our study were to investigate the rate of secondary infections, risk factors for secondary infections and risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Material and methods. We performed a single-center retrospective study in mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to our Critical Care Unit (CCU). We recorded the patients’ demographic data; clinical data; microbiology data and incidence of secondary infection during CCU stay, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and nosocomial bacteremia (primary and secondary). Results. A total of 107 patients with a mean age 62.2 ± 10.6 years were included. Incidence of secondary infection during CCU stay was 43.0% (46 patients), including nosocomial bacteremia (34 patients) and VAP (35 patients). Age was related to development of secondary infection (65.2 ± 7.3 vs. 59.9 ± 12.2 years, p=0.007). Age ≥ 65 years and secondary infection were independent predictors of mortality (OR=2.692, 95% CI 1.068-6.782, p<0.036; and OR=3.658, 95% CI 1.385- 9.660, p=0.009, respectively). The hazard ratio for death within 90 days in the ≥ 65 years group and in patients infected by antimicrobial resistant pathogens was 1.901 (95% CI 1.198- 3.018; p= 0.005 by log-rank test) and 1.787 (95% CI 1.023-3.122; p= 0.036 by log-rank test), respectively. Conclusions. Our data suggest that the incidence of secondary infection and infection by antimicrobial resistant pathogens is very high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 with a significant impact on prognosis.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document