Mechanical ventilation and clinical practice heterogeneity in intensive care units: a multicenter case-vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies on mechanical ventilation (MV) show practice variations across ICUs. We sought to determine, with a case-vignette study, the heterogeneity of processes of care in ICUs focusing on mechanical ventilation procedures, and whether organizational patterns or physician characteristics influence practice variations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional multicenter study using the case-vignette methodology. Descriptive analyses were calculated for each organizational pattern and respondent characteristics. An Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV, from 0, no heterogeneity, to a maximum of 1) was calculated. RESULTS: Forty ICUs from France (N = 33) and Switzerland (N = 7) participated; 396 physicians answered our case-vignettes. There was major heterogeneity of management processes related to MV within and across centers (mean IQV per center 0.51, SD 0.09). We observed the lowest variability (mean IQV per question < 0.4) for questions related to intubation procedure, ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome and the use of the semirecumbent position. We observed a high variability (mean IQV per question > 0.6) for questions related to management of endotracheal tube or suctioning, management of sedation and analgesia, and respect of autonomy. Heterogeneity was independent of respondent characteristics and of the presence of written procedures. There was a correlation between the processes associated with the highest variability (mean IQV per question > 0.6) and the annual volume of ICU admission (r = 0.32 (0.01 to 0.58)) and MV (r = 0.38 (0.07 to 0.63)). Within ICUs there was a large heterogeneity regarding knowledge of a local written procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Large clinical practice variations were found among ICUs. High volume centers were more likely to have heterogeneous practices. The presence of a local written procedure or respondent characteristics did not influence practice variation.

Long-term outcomes of pandemic 2009 influenza A(H1N1)-associated severe ARDS.

BACKGROUND: No data on long-term outcomes of survivors of 2009 influenza A(H1N1) (A[H1N1])-associated ARDS are available. The objective of this study was to compare the 1-year outcomes of survivors of A(H1N1)-associated ARDS, according to use or no use of extracorporeal lung assist (ECLA), using its need as an ARDS severity surrogate. METHODS: Survivors of ARDS (12 with ECLA use vs 25 without, corresponding to 75% and 54% of the eligible patients for each group, respectively) selected from the Réseau Européen de Ventilation Artificielle (REVA) registry had previously been healthy, with only pregnancy and/or moderate obesity (BMI ≤ 35 kg/m²) as known risk factors for A(H1N1) infection. Lung function and morphology, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychologic impairment were evaluated. RESULTS: At 1 year post-ICU discharge for the ECLA and no-ECLA groups, respectively, 50% and 40% reported significant exertion dyspnea, 83% and 64% had returned to work, and 75% and 64% had decreased diffusion capacity across the blood-gas barrier, despite their near-normal and similar lung function test results. For both groups, exercise test results showed diminished but comparable exercise capacities, with similar alveolar-arterial oxygen gradients at peak exercise, and CT scans showed minor abnormal findings. HRQoL assessed by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey was poorer for both groups than for a sex- and age-matched general population group, but without between-group differences. ECLA and no-ECLA group patients, respectively, had symptoms of anxiety (50% and 56%) and depression (28% and 28%) and were at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (41% and 44%). CONCLUSIONS: One year post-ICU discharge, a majority of survivors of A(H1N1)-associated ARDS had minor lung disabilities with diminished diffusion capacities across the blood-gas barrier, and most had psychologic impairment and poorer HRQoL than a sex- and age-matched general population group. ECLA and no-ECLA group patients had comparable outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01271842; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Clinical review: Update on neurally adjusted ventilatory assist - report of a round-table conference.

ABSTRACT: Conventional mechanical ventilators rely on pneumatic pressure and flow sensors and controllers to detect breaths. New modes of mechanical ventilation have been developed to better match the assistance delivered by the ventilator to the patient's needs. Among these modes, neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) delivers a pressure that is directly proportional to the integral of the electrical activity of the diaphragm recorded continuously through an esophageal probe. In clinical settings, NAVA has been chiefly compared with pressure-support ventilation, one of the most popular modes used during the weaning phase, which delivers a constant pressure from breath to breath. Comparisons with proportional-assist ventilation, which has numerous similarities, are lacking. Because of the constant level of assistance, pressure-support ventilation reduces the natural variability of the breathing pattern and can be associated with asynchrony and/or overinflation. The ability of NAVA to circumvent these limitations has been addressed in clinical studies and is discussed in this report. Although the underlying concept is fascinating, several important questions regarding the clinical applications of NAVA remain unanswered. Among these questions, determining the optimal NAVA settings according to the patient's ventilatory needs and/or acceptable level of work of breathing is a key issue. In this report, based on an investigator-initiated round table, we review the most recent literature on this topic and discuss the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of NAVA compared with other modes, as well as the risks and limitations of NAVA.