Steven R Holets

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Do-Not-Intubate Patients With Hypoxemic Respiratory Distress

BACKGROUND: Patients with do-not-intubate (DNI) status and respiratory failure are commonly treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy supplies a high flow of heated and humidified oxygen that may provide an effective alternative to NIV. We assessed the efficacy of HFNC in DNI patients with hypoxemic respiratory distress. METHODS: We identified 50 DNI patients with hypoxemic respiratory distress who were admitted to a medical ICU and who received HFNC. We excluded patients with PaCO2 > 65 mm Hg and pH < 7.28. The primary end point was the need for escalation to NIV, as determined by the primary service. Mean changes in oxygen saturation and breathing frequency before and after HFNC were compared. RESULTS: The subjects included 25 men and 25 women, mean age 73 years (range 27–96 y). Diagnoses (allowing multiple conditions) included pulmonary fibrosis (15), pneumonia (15), COPD (12), cancer (7), hematologic malignancy (7), and congestive heart failure (3). Hospital mortality was 60% (30/50). HFNC was initiated at a mean FIO2 of 0.67 (range 0.30–1.0) and flow of 42.6 L/min (range 30–60 L/min). Mean O2 saturations went from 89.1% to 94.7% (P < .001), and breathing frequency went from 30.6 breaths/min to 24.7 breaths/min (P < .001). Nine of the 50 subjects (18%) escalated to NIV, while 82% were maintained on HFNC. The median duration of HFNC was 30 hours (range 2–144 h). CONCLUSIONS: HFNC can provide adequate oxygenation for many patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and may be an alternative to NIV for DNI patients.

Ventilator self-cycling may falsely suggest patient effort during brain death determination

Brain death is suspected when a patient with a destructive neurologic brain injury on a ventilator fails to generate respirations and other brainstem reflexes are absent. An apnea test is mandated in brain-death evaluation. Apnea is concluded when no breathing effort is observed at PaCO2 of 60 mm Hg or with a 20 mm Hg increase from normal baseline.1 There are no reported cases of adult patients who were declared brain dead and later initiated respirations. Two cases from the U.K. (brain death and cardiac death) have been described where the ventilator readings were erroneous but remotely suggested patient effort.2,3 We have recently come across several instances during brain-death determination when it appeared that patients falsely triggered the ventilator. We would like to call attention to this phenomenon of ventilator self-cycling. From January 2002 to February 2005, we performed apnea tests in 83 patients in our neurologic-neurosurgical intensive care unit for brain-death determination. All patients fulfilled …

Effectiveness of hands-on tutoring and guided selfdirected learning versus self-directed learning alone to educate critical care fellows on mechanical ventilation - a pilot project

Background Physicians require extensive training to achieve proficiency in mechanical ventilator (MV) management of the critically ill patients. Guided self-directed learning (GSDL) is usually the method used to learn. However, it is unclear if this is the most proficient approach to teaching mechanical ventilation to critical care fellows. We, therefore, investigated whether critical care fellows achieve higher scores on standardized testing and report higher satisfaction after participating in a hands-on tutorial combined with GSDL compared to self-directed learning alone. Methods First-year Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellows (n=6) and Critical Care Internal Medicine (CCIM) (n=8) fellows participated. Satisfaction was assessed using the Likert scale. MV knowledge assessment was performed by administering a standardized 25-question multiple choice pre- and posttest. For 2 weeks the CCIM fellows were exposed to GSDL, while the PCCM fellows received hands-on tutoring combined with GSDL. Results Ninety-three percentage (6 PCCM and 7 CCIM fellows, total of 13 fellows) completed all evaluations and were included in the final analysis. CCIM and PCCM fellows scored similarly in the pretest (64% vs. 52%, p=0.13). Following interventions, the posttest scores increased in both groups. However, no significant difference was observed based on the interventions (74% vs. 77%, p=0.39). The absolute improvement with the hands-on-tutoring and GSDL group was higher than GSDL alone (25% vs. 10%, p=0.07). Improved satisfaction scores were noted with hands-on tutoring. Conclusions Hands-on tutoring combined with GSDL and GSDL alone were both associated with an improvement in posttest scores. Absolute improvement in test and satisfaction scores both trended higher in the hands-on tutorial group combined with GSDL group.Background Physicians require extensive training to achieve proficiency in mechanical ventilator (MV) management of the critically ill patients. Guided self-directed learning (GSDL) is usually the method used to learn. However, it is unclear if this is the most proficient approach to teaching mechanical ventilation to critical care fellows. We, therefore, investigated whether critical care fellows achieve higher scores on standardized testing and report higher satisfaction after participating in a hands-on tutorial combined with GSDL compared to self-directed learning alone. Methods First-year Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellows (n=6) and Critical Care Internal Medicine (CCIM) (n=8) fellows participated. Satisfaction was assessed using the Likert scale. MV knowledge assessment was performed by administering a standardized 25-question multiple choice pre- and posttest. For 2 weeks the CCIM fellows were exposed to GSDL, while the PCCM fellows received hands-on tutoring combined with GSDL. Results Ninety-three percentage (6 PCCM and 7 CCIM fellows, total of 13 fellows) completed all evaluations and were included in the final analysis. CCIM and PCCM fellows scored similarly in the pretest (64% vs. 52%, p=0.13). Following interventions, the posttest scores increased in both groups. However, no significant difference was observed based on the interventions (74% vs. 77%, p=0.39). The absolute improvement with the hands-on-tutoring and GSDL group was higher than GSDL alone (25% vs. 10%, p=0.07). Improved satisfaction scores were noted with hands-on tutoring. Conclusions Hands-on tutoring combined with GSDL and GSDL alone were both associated with an improvement in posttest scores. Absolute improvement in test and satisfaction scores both trended higher in the hands-on tutorial group combined with GSDL group.

Is Automated Weaning Superior to Manual Spontaneous Breathing Trials

Weaning from mechanical ventilation involves the reduction or withdrawal of ventilatory support in proportion to the patients ability to sustain spontaneous ventilation. Protocolized weaning has been shown to reduce weaning duration; however, its weakness lies in the reliance on human intervention. Automated weaning is theoretically superior to manual weaning because of its ability to rapidly recognize deviations from desired behavior and enforce compliance with a standardized weaning strategy unencumbered by external influences. Whether currently available methods for automated weaning fulfill that potential to achieve superiority depends on patient type, care environment, and cause of ventilator dependence.

Should a Portable Ventilator Be Used in All In-Hospital Transports?

Movement of the mechanically ventilated patient may be for a routine procedure or medical emergency. The risks of transport seem manageable, but the memory of a respiratory-related catastrophe still gives many practitioners pause. The risk/benefit ratio of transport must be assessed before movement. During transport of the ventilated patients, should we always use a transport ventilator? What is the risk of using manual ventilation? How are PEEP and FIO2 altered? Is there an impact on the ability to trigger during manual ventilation? Is hyperventilation and hypoventilation a common problem? Does hyperventilation or hypoventilation result in complications? Are portable ventilators worth the cost? What about the function of portable ventilators? Can these devices faithfully reproduce ICU ventilator function? The following pro and con discussion will attempt to address many of these issues by reviewing the current evidence on transport ventilation.

Integration of Pulmonary Mechanics in a Personalized Approach to Mechanical Ventilation

The concept of safe ventilation continues to evolve. Initially, a low tidal volume (VT) strategy,[1][1] then an open lung strategy,[2][2],[3][3] and now as mortality improvements have stagnated and promising targets such as PEEP and plateau pressure yield unsatisfactory and conflicting results,[4][4