Dijkman Wouter M, van Acht Niels M C, van Akkeren Jesse P, Bhagwanbali Rhasna C D, van Pul Carola
Department of Intensive Care, 8185Máxima Medical Center (MMC), Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Department of Applied Physics, 3169Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
J Intensive Care Med. 2021 Aug;36(8):963-971. doi: 10.1177/08850666211024911. Epub 2021 Jun 17.
In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, many patients were treated in hospitals using mechanical ventilation. However, due to a shortage of ICU ventilators, hospitals worldwide needed to deploy anesthesia machines for ICU ventilation (which is off-label use). A joint guidance was written to apply anesthesia machines for long-term ventilation. The goal of this research is to retrospectively evaluate the differences in measurable ventilation parameters between the ICU ventilator and the anesthesia machine as used for COVID-19 patients. In this study, we included 32 patients treated in March and April 2020, who had more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation, either in the regular ICU with ICU ventilators (Hamilton S1), or in the temporary emergency ICU with anesthetic ventilators (Aisys, GE). The data acquired during regular clinical treatment was collected from the Patient Data Management Systems. Available ventilation parameters (pressures and volumes: , , , ), monitored parameters , derived compliance , and resistance were processed and analyzed. A sub-analysis was performed to compare closed-loop ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV) to other ventilation modes. The results showed no major differences in the compared parameters, except for . was reduced over time in the with Hamilton treated patients. This is most likely attributed to changing clinical protocol as more clinical experience and literature became available. A comparison of compliance between the 2 ventilators could not be made due to variances in the measurement of compliance. Closed loop ventilation could be used in 79% of the time, resulting in more stable . From the analysis it can be concluded that the off-label usage of the anesthetic ventilator in our hospital did not result in differences in ventilation parameters compared to the ICU treatment in the first 4 days of ventilation.
在欧洲新冠疫情的最初几个月,许多患者在医院接受机械通气治疗。然而,由于重症监护病房(ICU)呼吸机短缺,全球各地的医院需要部署麻醉机用于ICU通气(这属于超说明书使用)。为此撰写了一份联合指南,以应用麻醉机进行长期通气。本研究的目的是回顾性评估用于新冠患者的ICU呼吸机和麻醉机在可测量通气参数方面的差异。在本研究中,我们纳入了2020年3月和4月接受治疗的32例患者,这些患者接受机械通气超过3天,有的在配备ICU呼吸机(汉密尔顿S1)的常规ICU中,有的在配备麻醉呼吸机(Aisys,通用电气)的临时急诊ICU中。从患者数据管理系统收集常规临床治疗期间获取的数据。对可用的通气参数(压力和容积: 、 、 、 )、监测参数 、导出的顺应性 和阻力 进行处理和分析。进行了一项亚分析,以比较闭环通气(INTELLiVENT - ASV)与其他通气模式。结果显示,除了 之外,所比较的参数没有重大差异。在接受汉密尔顿治疗的患者中, 随时间推移而降低。这很可能归因于随着更多临床经验和文献的出现,临床方案发生了变化。由于顺应性测量存在差异,无法对两种呼吸机的顺应性进行比较。闭环通气可在79%的时间内使用,从而使 更稳定。从分析中可以得出结论,在我院,麻醉呼吸机的超说明书使用与通气前4天的ICU治疗相比,在通气参数方面没有差异。