Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom; and Adult Therapy Services, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Health, Urban Vitality, Centre of Expertise, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Respir Care. 2022 Aug;67(8):1043-1057. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09704. Epub 2022 May 24.
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is traditionally used in the neuromuscular population. There is growing interest of MI-E use in invasively ventilated critically ill adults. We aimed to map current evidence on MI-E use in invasively ventilated critically ill adults. Two authors independently searched electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL via the Ovid platform; PROSPERO; Cochrane Library; ISI Web of Science; and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between January 1990-April 2021. Inclusion criteria were (1) adult critically ill invasively ventilated subjects, (2) use of MI-E, (3) study design with original data, and (4) published from 1990 onward. Data were extracted by 2 authors independently using a bespoke extraction form. We used Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise risk of bias. Theoretical Domains Framework was used to interpret qualitative data. Of 3,090 citations identified, 28 citations were taken forward for data extraction. Main indications for MI-E use during invasive ventilation were presence of secretions and mucus plugging (13/28, 46%). Perceived contraindications related to use of high levels of positive pressure (18/28, 68%). Protocolized MI-E settings with a pressure of ±40 cm HO were most commonly used, with detail on timing, flow, and frequency of prescription infrequently reported. Various outcomes were re-intubation rate, wet sputum weight, and pulmonary mechanics. Only 3 studies reported the occurrence of adverse events. From qualitative data, the main barrier to MI-E use in this subject group was lack of knowledge and skills. We concluded that there is little consistency in how MI-E is used and reported, and therefore, recommendations about best practices are not possible.
机械通气时正压通气-呼气(MI-E)传统上用于神经肌肉人群。MI-E 在侵入性通气的重症成人中的应用越来越受到关注。我们旨在绘制 MI-E 在侵入性通气的重症成人中应用的当前证据图。两位作者独立通过 Ovid 平台的 MEDLINE、Embase 和 CINAHL 电子数据库、PROSPERO、Cochrane 图书馆、ISI Web of Science 和国际临床试验注册平台进行搜索;检索时间为 1990 年 1 月至 2021 年 4 月。纳入标准为:(1)成人重症机械通气患者;(2)使用 MI-E;(3)研究设计有原始数据;(4)发表于 1990 年以后。两位作者使用定制的提取表格独立提取数据。我们使用混合方法评估工具评估偏倚风险。理论领域框架用于解释定性数据。在 3090 篇引文中共纳入 28 篇文章进行数据提取。MI-E 在侵入性通气期间的主要适应证是存在分泌物和黏液阻塞(13/28,46%)。与使用高压力水平相关的潜在禁忌证为(18/28,68%)。最常使用协议化的 MI-E 设置,压力为±40 cm HO,很少详细报告定时、流量和处方频率。各种结局为再插管率、湿痰重量和肺力学。只有 3 项研究报告了不良事件的发生。从定性数据来看,该人群中 MI-E 使用的主要障碍是缺乏知识和技能。我们的结论是,MI-E 的使用和报告方式缺乏一致性,因此无法提出最佳实践建议。