Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO.
Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
Crit Care Med. 2019 Mar;47(3):360-368. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003590.
Prior studies investigating hospital mechanical ventilation volume-outcome associations have had conflicting findings. Volume-outcome relationships within contemporary mechanical ventilation practices are unclear. We sought to determine associations between hospital mechanical ventilation volume and patient outcomes.
Retrospective cohort study.
The California Patient Discharge Database 2016.
Adult nonsurgical patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
The primary outcome was hospital death with secondary outcomes of tracheostomy and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to determine the association between patient outcomes and hospital mechanical ventilation volume quartile.
We identified 51,689 patients across 274 hospitals who required mechanical ventilation in California in 2016. 38.2% of patients died in the hospital with 4.4% receiving a tracheostomy. Among survivors, 29.5% required readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients admitted to high versus low volume hospitals had higher odds of death (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.68) and tracheostomy (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.06). However, odds of 30-day readmission among survivors was lower at high versus low volume hospitals (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89). Higher hospital mechanical ventilation volume was weakly correlated with higher hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates (ρ = 0.16; p = 0.008). These moderately strong observations were supported by multiple sensitivity analyses.
Contrary to previous studies, we observed worse patient outcomes at higher mechanical ventilation volume hospitals. In the setting of increasing use of mechanical ventilation and changes in mechanical ventilation practices, multiple mechanisms of worse outcomes including resource strain are possible. Future studies investigating differences in processes of care between high and low volume hospitals are necessary.
先前研究调查医院机械通气量与结果之间的关系存在相互矛盾的结果。在当代机械通气实践中,通气量与结果之间的关系尚不清楚。我们旨在确定医院机械通气量与患者预后之间的关联。
回顾性队列研究。
2016 年加利福尼亚州患者出院数据库。
接受机械通气的非手术成年患者。
主要结果是医院死亡,次要结果是气管切开术和 30 天再入院。我们使用多变量广义估计方程来确定患者预后与医院机械通气量四分位数之间的关系。
我们在 2016 年加利福尼亚州的 274 家医院中确定了 51689 名需要机械通气的患者。38.2%的患者在医院死亡,其中 4.4%接受了气管切开术。在幸存者中,29.5%在出院后 30 天内再次入院。与低容量医院相比,高容量医院收治的患者死亡(四分位 4 与四分位 1 调整后的优势比,1.40;95%可信区间,1.17-1.68)和气管切开术(四分位 4 与四分位 1 调整后的优势比,1.58;95%可信区间,1.21-2.06)的几率更高。然而,在幸存者中,高容量与低容量医院之间 30 天再入院的几率较低(四分位 4 与四分位 1 调整后的优势比,0.77;95%可信区间,0.67-0.89)。医院机械通气量越高,医院风险调整后死亡率越高(ρ=0.16;p=0.008)。这些中度强烈的观察结果得到了多项敏感性分析的支持。
与先前的研究相反,我们观察到在机械通气量较高的医院中患者预后较差。在机械通气使用增加和机械通气实践变化的情况下,包括资源紧张在内的多种导致不良结果的机制是可能的。有必要对高容量和低容量医院之间护理过程差异进行进一步研究。