• Lynda T Goodfellow, Andrew G Miller, Sarah M Varekojis, Carolyn J LaVita, Joel T Glogowski, and Dean R Hess.
• Director of AARC Clinical Practice Guideline Development and is affiliated with American Association for Respiratory Care/Daedalus Enterprises, Irving, Texas, and Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia Lynda.goodfellow@aarc.org.
• Respir Care. 2024 Jul 24; 69 (8): 104210541042-1054.

AbstractGiven the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) We recommend assessment of plateau pressure to ensure lung-protective ventilator settings (strong recommendation, high certainty); (2) We recommend an assessment of tidal volume (VT) to ensure lung-protective ventilation (4-8 mL/kg/predicted body weight) (strong recommendation, high certainty); (3) We recommend documenting VT as mL/kg predicted body weight (strong recommendation, high certainty); (4) We recommend an assessment of PEEP and auto-PEEP (strong recommendation, high certainty); (5) We suggest assessing driving pressure to prevent ventilator-induced injury (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (6) We suggest assessing FIO2 to ensure normoxemia (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (7) We suggest telemonitoring to supplement direct bedside assessment in settings with limited resources (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (8) We suggest direct bedside assessment rather than telemonitoring when resources are adequate (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (9) We suggest assessing adequate humidification for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (10) We suggest assessing the appropriateness of the humidification device during NIV and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (11) We recommend that the skin surrounding artificial airways and NIV interfaces be assessed (strong recommendation, high certainty); (12) We suggest assessing the dressing used for tracheostomy tubes and NIV interfaces (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (13) We recommend assessing the pressure inside the cuff of artificial airways using a manometer (strong recommendation, high certainty); (14) We recommend that continuous cuff pressure assessment should not be implemented to decrease the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (strong recommendation, high certainty); and (15) We suggest assessing the proper placement and securement of artificial airways (conditional recommendation, very low certainty).Copyright © 2024 by Daedalus Enterprises.

24 keywords...

hide…