4.5 Article

Mechanical ventilation practices in Asian intensive care units: A multicenter cross-sectional study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154452

关键词

Mechanical ventilation; Lung-protective ventilation; Low tidal volumes; Asia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the current practices of mechanical ventilation in Asian intensive care units. The results showed that low tidal volume ventilation and sufficient PEEP were underused in patients with ARDS, while intermediate tidal volumes were commonly used in patients without ARDS. Country income, age, and severity of illness were associated with mortality.
Purpose: This study investigated current practices of mechanical ventilation in Asian intensive care units, focusing on tidal volume, plateau pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP).Materials and methods: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, data on mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes were collected. Predictors of mortality were analyzed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression. A scoring system was generated to predict 28-day mortality.Results: A total of 1408 patients were enrolled. In 138 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 65.9% were on a tidal volume <= 8 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW), and 71.3% were on sufficient PEEP. In 1270 patients without ARDS, 88.8% were on a tidal volume <= 10 ml/kg PBW. A plateau pressure < 30 cmH(2)O was measured in 92.2% of patients. Mortality rates increased from 13% to 74% as the generated predictive score increased from 5 to >= 8.5. Income classification, age, SOFA score, PaO2/FiO(2) ratio, plateau pressure, number of vasopressors, and steroid use were associated with mortality.Conclusions; In Asia, low tidal volume ventilation and sufficient PEEP were underused in patients with ARDS. The majority of patients without ARDS were on intermediate tidal volumes. Country income, age, and severity of illness were associated with mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据