The Practice Change and Clinical Impact of Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department: A Secondary Analysis of Individual Patient-Level Data from Prior Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies∗

Brian M. Fuller, Nicholas M. Mohr, Enyo Ablordeppey, Olivia Roman, Dylan Mittauer, Yan Yan, Marin H. Kollef, Christopher R. Carpenter, Brian W. Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Mechanically ventilated emergency department (ED) patients experience high morbidity and mortality. In a prior trial at our center, ED-based lung-protective ventilation was associated with improved care delivery and outcomes. Whether this strategy has persisted in the years after the trial remains unclear. The objective was to assess practice change and clinical outcomes associated with ED lung-protective ventilation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of individual patient-level data from prior clinical trials and cohort studies. SETTING: ED and ICUs of a single academic center. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adults. INTERVENTIONS: A lung-protective ventilator protocol used as the default approach in the ED. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary ventilator-related outcome was tidal volume, and the primary clinical outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, hospital-, and ICU-free days. Multivariable logistic regression, propensity score (PS)-adjustment, and multiple a priori subgroup analyses were used to evaluate outcome as a function of the intervention. A total of 1,796 patients in the preintervention period and 1,403 patients in the intervention period were included. In the intervention period, tidal volume was reduced from 8.2 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) (7.3-9.1) to 6.5 mL/kg PBW (6.1-7.1), and low tidal volume ventilation increased from 46.8% to 96.2% (p < 0.01). The intervention period was associated with lower mortality (35.9% vs 19.1%), remaining significant after multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53; p < 0.01). Similar results were seen after PS adjustment and in subgroups. The intervention group had more ventilator- (18.8 [10.1] vs 14.1 [11.9]; p < 0.01), hospital- (12.2 [9.6] vs 9.4 [9.5]; p < 0.01), and ICU-free days (16.6 [10.1] vs 13.1 [11.1]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ED lung-protective ventilation has persisted in the years since implementation and was associated with improved outcomes. These data suggest the use of ED-based lung-protective ventilation as a means to improve outcome.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)279-290
Number of pages12
JournalCritical care medicine
Volume51
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2023

Keywords

  • emergency department
  • implementation
  • lung-protective ventilation
  • mechanical ventilation
  • ventilator-associated lung injury

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Practice Change and Clinical Impact of Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department: A Secondary Analysis of Individual Patient-Level Data from Prior Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies∗'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this