Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and Critical Illness Injury and Recovery Research Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Respir Care. 2023 Oct;68(10):1331-1339. doi: 10.4187/respcare.10803. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
Patient-triggered adaptive pressure control (APC) continuous mandatory ventilation (CMV) (APC-CMV) has been widely adopted as an alternative ventilator mode to patient-triggered volume control (VC) CMV (VC-CMV). However, the comparative effectiveness of the 2 ventilator modes remains uncertain. We sought to explore clinical and implementation factors pertinent to a future definitive randomized controlled trial assessing APC-CMV versus VC-CMV as an initial ventilator mode strategy. The research objectives in our pilot trial tested clinician adherence and explored clinical outcomes.
In a single-center pragmatic sequential cluster crossover pilot trial, we enrolled all eligible adults with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation admitted during a 9-week period to the medical ICU. Two-week time epochs were assigned a priori in which subjects received either APC-CMV or VC-CMV The primary outcome of the trial was feasibility, defined as 80% of subjects receiving the assigned mode within 1 h of initiation of ICU ventilation. The secondary outcome was proportion of the first 24 h on the assigned mode. Finally, we surveyed clinician stakeholders to understand potential facilitators and barriers to conducting a definitive randomized trial.
We enrolled 137 subjects who received 152 discreet episodes of mechanical ventilation during time epochs assigned to APC-CMV ( = 61) and VC-CMV ( = 91). One hundred and thirty-one episodes were included in the prespecified primary outcome. One hundred and twenty-six (96%) received the assigned mode within the first hour of ICU admission (60 of 61 subjects assigned APC-CMV and 66 of 70 assigned VC-CMV). VC-CMV subjects spent a lower proportion of first 24 h (84% [95% CI 78-89]) on the assigned mode than APC-CMV recipients (95% [95% CI 91-100]). Mixed-methods analyses identified preconceived perceptions of subject comfort by clinicians and need for real-time education to address this concern.
In this pilot pragmatic, sequential crossover trial, unit-wide allocation to a ventilator mode was feasible and acceptable to clinicians.
患者触发适应性压力控制(APC)持续强制通气(CMV)(APC-CMV)已被广泛采用作为替代患者触发容量控制(VC)CMV(VC-CMV)的通气模式。然而,这两种通气模式的相对效果仍不确定。我们试图探讨与未来评估 APC-CMV 与 VC-CMV 作为初始通气模式策略的随机对照试验相关的临床和实施因素。我们的试验研究目的是检验临床医生的依从性并探索临床结果。
在一项单中心实用序贯交叉试点试验中,我们招募了在 9 周内入住 ICU 的所有需要机械通气的急性呼吸衰竭的成年患者。每个 2 周的时间段预先分配接受 APC-CMV 或 VC-CMV。试验的主要结果是可行性,定义为 80%的患者在 ICU 通气开始后 1 小时内接受指定模式。次要结果是指定模式的前 24 小时的比例。最后,我们调查了临床医生利益相关者,以了解开展确定性随机试验的潜在促进因素和障碍。
我们招募了 137 名患者,他们在 APC-CMV(=61)和 VC-CMV(=91)时间段接受了 152 次机械通气。131 次通气纳入了预设的主要结果。126 次(96%)在 ICU 入院后 1 小时内接受了指定模式(60 名 APC-CMV 患者和 70 名 VC-CMV 患者)。与 APC-CMV 接受者相比,VC-CMV 患者在前 24 小时内(84%[95%CI78-89%])使用指定模式的比例较低(95%[95%CI91-100%])。混合方法分析确定了临床医生对患者舒适度的先入为主的看法以及需要实时教育来解决这一问题。
在这项实用的、序贯交叉的试点试验中,向整个单位分配通气模式是可行的,并且被临床医生接受。