Non-invasive ventilation for cystic fibrosis.

Non-invasive ventilation may be a means to temporarily reverse or slow the progression of respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis. To compare the effect of non-invasive ventilation versus no non-invasive ventilation in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We searched the reference lists of each trial for additional publications possibly containing other trials.Most recent search: 22 February 2013. Randomised controlled trials comparing a form of pressure preset or volume preset non-invasive ventilation to no non-invasive ventilation in people with acute or chronic respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis. Three reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and methodological quality, and extracted data. Fifteen trials were identified; seven trials met the inclusion criteria with a total of 106 participants. Six trials evaluated single treatment sessions and one evaluated a six-week intervention.Four trials (79 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation for airway clearance compared with an alternative chest physiotherapy method and showed that airway clearance may be easier with non-invasive ventilation and people with cystic fibrosis may prefer it. We were unable to find any evidence that NIV increases sputum expectoration, but it did improve some lung function parameters.Three trials (27 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation for overnight ventilatory support, measuring lung function, validated quality of life scores and nocturnal transcutaneous carbon dioxide. Due to the small numbers of participants and statistical issues, there were discrepancies in the results between the RevMan and the original trial analyses. No clear differences were found between non-invasive ventilation compared with oxygen or room air except for exercise performance, which significantly improved with non-invasive ventilation compared to room air over six weeks. Non-invasive ventilation may be a useful adjunct to other airway clearance techniques, particularly in people with cystic fibrosis who have difficulty expectorating sputum. Non-invasive ventilation, used in addition to oxygen, may improve gas exchange during sleep to a greater extent than oxygen therapy alone in moderate to severe disease. These benefits of non-invasive ventilation have largely been demonstrated in single treatment sessions with small numbers of participants. The impact of this therapy on pulmonary exacerbations and disease progression remain unclear. There is a need for long-term randomised controlled trials which are adequately powered to determine the clinical effects of non-invasive ventilation in cystic fibrosis airway clearance and exercise.

Non-invasive Ventilation of Patients with ARDS: Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

Background: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Whether, during NIV, the categorization of ARDS severity based on the PaO2/FiO2 Berlin criteria is useful is unknown. The evidence supporting NIV use in patients with ARDS remains relatively sparse.

Methods: The Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study described the management of patients with ARDS. This sub-study examines the current practice of NIV use in ARDS, the utility of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in classifying patients receiving NIV and the impact of NIV on outcome.

Results: Of 2,813 patients with ARDS, 436 (15.5%) were managed with NIV on days 1 and 2 following fulfillment of diagnostic criteria. Classification of ARDS severity based on PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with an increase in intensity of ventilatory support, NIV failure, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality. NIV failure occurred in 22.2% of mild, 42.3% of moderate and 47.1% of patients with severe ARDS. Hospital mortality in patients with NIV success and failure was 16.1 % and 45.4%, respectively. NIV use was independently associated with increased ICU (HR 1.446; [1.159-1.805]), but not hospital mortality. In a propensity matched analysis, ICU mortality was higher in NIV than invasively ventilated patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mmHg.

Conclusions: NIV was used in 15% of patients with ARDS, irrespective of severity category. NIV appears to be associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mmHg.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionAutomated weaning systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient’s ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. Our objective was to compare mechanical ventilator weaning duration for critically ill adults and children when managed with automated systems versus non-automated strategies. Secondary objectives were to determine differences in duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to 30 September 2013 without language restrictions. We also searched conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and article reference lists. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data using random-effects modelling.ResultsWe identified 21 eligible trials totalling 1,676 participants. Pooled data from 16 trials indicated that automated systems reduced the geometric mean weaning duration by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87%, P <0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (42%, 95% CI 10% to 63%) and Smartcare/PS™ (28%, 95% CI 7% to 49%) but not with surgical populations or using other systems. Automated systems reduced ventilation duration with no heterogeneity (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of effect on mortality, hospital LOS, reintubation, self-extubation and non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Automated systems reduced prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. Overall quality of evidence was high.ConclusionsAutomated systems may reduce weaning and ventilation duration and ICU stay. Due to substantial trial heterogeneity an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial is needed.

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults & children (Review)

Background Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. This review was originally published in 2013 with an update published in 2014. Objectives The primary objective for this review was to compare the total duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, defined as the time from study randomization to successful extubation (as defined by study authors), for critically ill ventilated patients managed with an automated weaning system versus no automated weaning system (usual care). Secondary objectives for this review were to determine differences in the duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events related to early or delayed extubation with the use of automated weaning systems compared to weaning in the absence of an automated weaning system. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to September 2013); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to September 2013); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to September 2013); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles. The original search was run in August 2011, with database auto-alerts up to August 2012. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an ICU. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data in forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria. Main results We included 21 trials (19 adult, two paediatric) totaling 1676 participants (1628 adults, 48 children) in this updated review. Pooled data from 16 eligible trials reporting weaning duration indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), however heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 87%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (42%, 95% CI 10% to 63%) and Smartcare/PS™ (28%, 95% CI 7% to 49%) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of an effect on mortality rates, hospital LOS, reintubation rates, self-extubation and use of non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Prolonged mechanical ventilation > 21 days and tracheostomy were reduced in favour of automated systems (relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95 and RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90 respectively). Overall the quality of the evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk. Authors' conclusions Automated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation and ICU stay. Reductions are more likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.

A randomised, controlled trial of conventional versus automated weaning from mechanical ventilation using SmartcareTM/PS

Objective
Preliminary assessment of an automated weaning system (SmartCare™/PS) compared to usual management of weaning from mechanical ventilation performed in the absence of formal protocols.


Design and setting
A randomised, controlled pilot study in one Australian intensive care unit.


Patients
A total of 102 patients were equally divided between SmartCare/PS and Control.

Interventions
The automated system titrated pressure support, conducted a spontaneous breathing trial and provided notification of success (“separation potential”).

Measurements and results
The median time from the first identified point of suitability for weaning commencement to the state of “separation potential” using SmartCare/PS was 20 h (interquartile range, IQR, 2–40) compared to 8 h (IQR 2–43) with Control (log-rank P = 0.3). The median time to successful extubation was 43 h (IQR 6–169) using SmartCare/PS and 40 (14–87) with Control (log-rank P = 0.6). Unadjusted, the estimated probability of reaching “separation potential” was 21% lower (95% CI, 48% lower to 20% greater) with SmartCare/PS compared to Control. Adjusted for other covariates (age, gender, APACHE II, SOFAmax, neuromuscular blockade, corticosteroids, coma and elevated blood glucose), these estimates were 31% lower (95% CI, 56% lower to 9% greater) with SmartCare/PS. The study groups showed comparable rates of reintubation, non-invasive ventilation post-extubation, tracheostomy, sedation, neuromuscular blockade and use of corticosteroids.

Conclusions
Substantial reductions in weaning duration previously demonstrated were not confirmed when the SmartCare/PS system was compared to weaning managed by experienced critical care specialty nurses, using a 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio. The effect of SmartCare/PS may be influenced by the local clinical organisational context.

I can't get a breath: experiences of living with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

This study aims to explore the potential for palliative care among people living with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individual semi-structured interviews (n=13) were conducted with people who had a diagnosis of advanced COPD and were on optimal tolerated drug therapy, with their breathing volume (forced expiratory volume at less than 30%) or were on long-term oxygen therapy or non-invasion ventilation. Participants raised concerns about the uncertain trajectory of the illness and reported unmet palliative care needs with poor access to palliative care services. For most people, palliative care was associated with end of life; therefore, they were unwilling to discuss the issue. There was a wide acceptance that, medically, nothing more could be done. Findings also suggest that patients had unmet palliative care needs, requiring information and support. The research suggests the need for palliative care to be extended to all (regardless of diagnosis), with packages of care developed to target specific needs.

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children (Review)

Abstract
Background: Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of the mechanical support to a patient's ventilatory needs and
facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of
ventilation.

Objectives: To compare the duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation for critically ill ventilated adults and children when managed
with automated closed loop systems versus non-automated strategies. Secondary objectives were to determine differences
in duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to August 2011); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to August 2011); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to August 2011); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). In addition we received and reviewed auto-alerts for our search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to August 2012. Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning
strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU).

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data into forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria.

Main results: Pooled data from 15 eligible trials (14 adult, one paediatric) totalling 1173 participants (1143 adults, 30 children) indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 32% (95% CI 19% to 46%, P =0.002), however heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 89%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or
medical ICU populations (43%, 95% CI 8% to 65%, P = 0.02) and Smartcare/PS™ (31%, 95% CI 7% to 49%, P = 0.02) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (17%, 95% CI 8% to 26%) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (11%, 95% CI 0% to 21%). There was no difference in mortality rates or hospital LOS. Overall the quality of evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk.

Authors' conclusions: Automated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation, and ICU stay. Reductions are more
likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized
controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.

Protocolised versus non-protocolised weaning from mechanical ventilation in adult critical care.

Contribution: I co-authored this paper. This paper is primarily aimed at informing clinically based health professionals.

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of weaning by protocol for invasively ventilated critically ill children.

To compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of critically ill children who are weaned using protocols versus usual (non-protocolized) practice.
To ascertain any differences between protocolized weaning and usual care in terms of mortality, adverse events, ICU length of stay, and quality of life.