The COVID–19 pandemic led to local oxygen shortages worldwide. To gain a better understanding of oxygen consumption with different respiratory supportive therapies, we conducted an international multicenter observational study to determine the precise amount of oxygen consumption with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and with mechanical ventilation. A retrospective observational study was conducted in three intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands and Spain. Patients were classified as HFNO patients or ventilated patients, according to the mode of oxygen supplementation with which a patient started. The primary endpoint was actual oxygen consumption; secondary endpoints were hourly and total oxygen consumption during the first two full calendar days. Of 275 patients, 147 started with HFNO and 128 with mechanical ventilation. Actual oxygen use was 4.9-fold higher in patients who started with HFNO than in patients who started with ventilation (median 14.2 [8.4–18.4] versus 2.9 [1.8–4.1] L/minute; mean difference 5 11.3 [95% CI 11.0–11.6] L/minute; P, 0.01). Hourly and total oxygen consumption were 4.8-fold (P, 0.01) and 4.8-fold (P, 0.01) higher. Actual oxygen consumption, hourly oxygen consumption, and total oxygen consumption are substantially higher in patients that start with HFNO compared with patients that start with mechanical ventilation. This information may help hospitals and ICUs predicting oxygen needs during high-demand periods and could guide decisions regarding the source of distribution of medical oxygen.
MULTIFILE
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation (MI-E) is used as an airway clearance intervention in primary care (home ventilation), long-term care (prolonged rehabilitation after intensive care, neuromuscular diseases, and spinal cord injury), and increasingly in acute care in intensive care units (ICU).AIM: We sought to develop in-depth understanding of factors influencing decision-making processes of health care professionals regarding initiation, escalation, de-escalation, and discontinuation of MI-E for invasively ventilated patients including perceived barriers and facilitators to use.METHODS: We conducted focus groups (3 in the Netherlands; 1 with participants from four European countries) with clinicians representing the ICU interprofessional team and with variable experience of MI-E. The semi-structured interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Two researchers independently coded data for directed content analysis using codes developed from the TDF.RESULTS: A purposive sample of 35 health care professionals participated. Experience varied from infrequent to several years of frequent MI-E use in different patient populations. We identified four main themes: (1) knowledge; (2) beliefs; (3) clinical decision-making; and (4) future adoption.CONCLUSION: Interprofessional knowledge and expertise of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients is limited due to minimal available evidence and adoption. Participants believed MI-E a potentially useful intervention for airway clearance and inclusion in weaning protocols when more evidence is available.RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This focus group study provides an overview of current practice, knowledge and expertise, and barriers and facilitators to using MI-E in mechanically ventilated patients. From these data, it is evident there is a need to develop further clinical expertise and evidence of efficacy to further understand the role of MI-E as an airway clearance technique for ventilated patients.
Introduction: Few data described practicalities of using mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) for invasively ventilated ICU patients and evidence for benefit of their use is lacking.Aim and objective: To identify barriers and facilitators to use MI-E devices in invasively ventilated ICU patients, and to explore reasons for their use in various patient indications.Methods: Four focus group discussions; 3 national (Netherlands) and 1 with international representation, each with a purposeful interprofessional sample of a maximum 10 participants with experience in using MI-E in invasively ventilated ICU patients. We developed a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Theoretical Domain Framework. An observer was present in each session. Sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using content analysis.Results: Barriers for MI-E use were lack of evidence and lack of expertise in MI-E, as well as lack of device availability within the ICU. Facilitators were experience with MI-E and perceived clinical improvement in patients with MI-E use. Common reasons to start using MI-E were difficult weaning, recurrent atelectasis and pneumonia. Main contraindications were, bullous emphysema, ARDS, high PEEP, hemodynamic instability, recent pneumothorax. There was substantial variability on used technical settings of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients.Conclusions: Key barriers and facilitators to MI-E were lack of evidence, available expertise and perceived clinical improvement. Variability on technical settings likely reflect lack of evidence. Future studies should focus on settings, safety and feasibility of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients before studies on effect can be conducted.
LINK
