TY - JOUR
T1 - Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department (LOV-ED)
T2 - A Quasi-Experimental, Before-After Trial
AU - Fuller, Brian M.
AU - Ferguson, Ian T.
AU - Mohr, Nicholas M.
AU - Drewry, Anne M.
AU - Palmer, Christopher
AU - Wessman, Brian T.
AU - Ablordeppey, Enyo
AU - Keeperman, Jacob
AU - Stephens, Robert J.
AU - Briscoe, Cristopher C.
AU - Kolomiets, Angelina A.
AU - Hotchkiss, Richard S.
AU - Kollef, Marin H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians
PY - 2017/9
Y1 - 2017/9
N2 - Study objective We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)–based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications. Methods This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score–matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions. Results A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score–matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63). Conclusion Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome.
AB - Study objective We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)–based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications. Methods This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score–matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions. Results A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score–matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63). Conclusion Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014078277&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.013
DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 28259481
AN - SCOPUS:85014078277
SN - 0196-0644
VL - 70
SP - 406-418.e4
JO - Annals of emergency medicine
JF - Annals of emergency medicine
IS - 3
ER -