• Curtis H Weiss, David W Baker, Shayna Weiner, Meagan Bechel, Margaret Ragland, Alfred Rademaker, Bing Bing Weitner, Abha Agrawal, Richard G Wunderink, and Stephen D Persell.
• 1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 2Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, IL. 4University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI. 5Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 6Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 7Department of Preventive Medicine-Biostatistics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 8Norwegian American Hospital, Chicago, IL.
• Crit. Care Med. 2016 Aug 1; 44 (8): 1515-22.

ObjectiveLow tidal volume ventilation lowers mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Previous studies reported poor low tidal volume ventilation implementation. We sought to determine the rate, quality, and predictors of low tidal volume ventilation use.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.SettingOne academic and three community hospitals in the Chicago region.PatientsA total of 362 adults meeting the Berlin Definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome consecutively admitted between June and December 2013.Measurements And Main ResultsSeventy patients (19.3%) were treated with low tidal volume ventilation (tidal volume < 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight) at some time during mechanical ventilation. In total, 22.2% of patients requiring an FIO2 greater than 40% and 37.3% of patients with FIO2 greater than 40% and plateau pressure greater than 30 cm H2O received low tidal volume ventilation. The entire cohort received low tidal volume ventilation 11.4% of the time patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among patients who received low tidal volume ventilation, the mean (SD) percentage of acute respiratory distress syndrome time it was used was 59.1% (38.2%), and 34% waited more than 72 hours prior to low tidal volume ventilation initiation. Women were less likely to receive low tidal volume ventilation, whereas sepsis and FIO2 greater than 40% were associated with increased odds of low tidal volume ventilation use. Four attending physicians (6.2%) initiated low tidal volume ventilation within 1 day of acute respiratory distress syndrome onset for greater than or equal to 50% of their patients, whereas 34 physicians (52.3%) never initiated low tidal volume ventilation within 1 day of acute respiratory distress syndrome onset. In total, 54.4% of patients received a tidal volume less than 8 mL/kg predicted body weight, and the mean tidal volume during the first 72 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset was never less than 8 mL/kg predicted body weight.ConclusionsMore than 12 years after publication of the landmark low tidal volume ventilation study, use remains poor. Interventions that improve adoption of low tidal volume ventilation are needed.

22 keywords...

hide…