Reducing Mortality in the Perioperative Period (original) (raw)
Related papers
JAMA, 2016
; for the NIVAS Study Group IMPORTANCE It has not been established whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who develop hypoxemic acute respiratory failure after abdominal surgery. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether noninvasive ventilation improves outcomes among patients developing hypoxemic acute respiratory failure after abdominal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial conducted between May 2013 and September 2014 in 20 French intensive care units among 293 patients who had undergone abdominal surgery and developed hypoxemic respiratory failure (partial oxygen pressure <60 mm Hg or oxygen saturation [SpO 2 ] Յ90% when breathing room air or <80 mm Hg when breathing 15 L/min of oxygen, plus either [1] a respiratory rate above 30/min or [2] clinical signs suggestive of intense respiratory muscle work and/or labored breathing) if it occurred within 7 days after surgical procedure. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard oxygen therapy (up to 15 L/min to maintain SpO 2 of 94% or higher) (n = 145) or NIV delivered via facial mask (inspiratory pressure support level, 5-15 cm H 2 O; positive end-expiratory pressure, 5-10 cm H 2 O; fraction of inspired oxygen titrated to maintain SpO 2 Ն94%) (n = 148). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was tracheal reintubation for any cause within 7 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes were gas exchange, invasive ventilation-free days at day 30, health care-associated infections, and 90-day mortality. RESULTS Among the 293 patients (mean age, 63.4 [SD, 13.8] years; n=224 men) included in the intention-to-treat analysis, reintubation occurred in 49 of 148 (33.1%) in the NIV group and in 66 of 145 (45.5%) in the standard oxygen therapy group within+ 7 days after randomization (absolute difference, −12.4%; 95% CI, −23.5% to −1.3%; P = .03). Noninvasive ventilation was associated with significantly more invasive ventilation-free days compared with standard oxygen therapy (25.4 vs 23.2 days; absolute difference, −2.2 days; 95% CI, −0.1 to 4.6 days; P = .04), while fewer patients developed health care-associated infections (43/137 [31.4%] vs 63/128 [49.2%]; absolute difference, −17.8%; 95% CI, −30.2% to −5.4%; P = .003). At 90 days, 22 of 148 patients (14.9%) in the NIV group and 31 of 144 (21.5%) in the standard oxygen therapy group had died (absolute difference, −6.5%; 95% CI, −16.0% to 3.0%; P = .15). There were no significant differences in gas exchange. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure following abdominal surgery, use of NIV compared with standard oxygen therapy reduced the risk of tracheal reintubation within 7 days. These findings support use of NIV in this setting.
Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy
Unlike general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia (NA) reduces the burden and risk of respiratory adverse events in the post-operative period. However, both patients affected by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chest wall disorders and/or neuromuscular diseases may experience the development or the worsening of respiratory failure, even during surgery performed under NA; this latter negatively affects the function of accessory respiratory muscles, resulting in a blunted central response to hypercapnia and possibly in an exacerbation of cardiac dysfunction (NA-induced relative hypovolemia). According to European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is effective in the post-operative period for the treatment of both impaired pulmonary gas exchange and ventilation, while the intra-operative use of NIV in association with NA is just anecdotally reported in the literature. Whilst NIV does not assure a protected patent airway and requires the patient's cooperation, it is a handy tool during surgery under NA: NIV is reported to be successful for treatment of acute respiratory failure; it may be delivered through the patient's home ventilator, may reverse hypoventilation induced by sedatives or inadvertent spread of anaesthetic up to cervical dermatomes, and allow the avoidance of intubation in patients affected by chronic respiratory failure, prolonging the time of non-invasiveness of respiratory support (i.e., neuromuscular patients needing surgery). All these advantages could make NIV preferable to oxygen in carefully selected patients.
ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine
A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo-or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/ Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B. NIV IN ACUTE HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE: B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent airborne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C. APPLICATION OF NIV: Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D. MANAGEMENT OF PATIENT ON NIV: D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E. EQUIPMENT: Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non-invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F. WEANING: Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B)
Critical Care, 2009
There is considerable uncertainty about the reproducibility of the various instruments used to measure dyspnea, their ability to reflect changes in symptoms, whether they accurately reflect the patient's experience and if its evolution is similar between acute heart failure syndrome patients and nonacute heart failure syndrome patients. URGENT was a prospective multicenter trial designed to address these issues. Methods Patients were interviewed within 1 hour of first physician evaluation, in the emergency department or acute care setting, with dyspnea assessed by the patient using both a five-point Likert scale and a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) in the sitting (60º) and then supine (20º) position if dyspnea had not been considered severe or very severe by the sitting versus decubitus dyspnea measurement. Results Very good agreements were found between the five-point Likert and VAS at baseline (0.891, P <0.0001) and between changes (from baseline to hour 6) in the five-point Likert and in VAS (0.800, P <0.0001) in acute heart failure (AHF) patients. Lower agreements were found when changes from baseline to H6 measured by Likert or VAS were compared with the seven-point comparative Likert (0.512 and 0.500 respectively) in AHF patients. The worse the dyspnea at admission, the greater the amplitude of improvement in the first 6 hours; this relationship is stronger when dyspnea is measured with VAS (Spearman's rho coefficient = 0.672) than with the five-point Likert (0.272) (both P <0.0001) in AHF patients. By the five-point Likert, only nine patients (3% (1% to 5%)) reported an improvement in their dyspnea, 177 (51% (46% to 57%)) had no change, and 159 (46% (41% to 52%)) reported worse dyspnea supine compared with sitting up in AHF patients. The PDA test with VAS was markedly different between AHF and non-AHF patients. Conclusions Both clinical tools five-point Likert and VAS showed very good agreement at baseline and between changes from baseline to tests performed 6 hours later in AHF patients. The PDA test with VAS was markedly different between AHF and non-AHF patients. Dyspnea is improved within 6 hours in more than threequarters of the patients regardless of the tool used to measure the change in dyspnea. The greater the dyspnea at admission, the greater the amplitude of improvement in the first 6 hours.