Pressure-flow breath representation eases asynchrony identification in mechanically ventilated patients

The Ability of Critical Care Physicians to Identify Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony Using Waveform Analysis: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Improved patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) identification using waveform analysis by critical care physicians (CCPs) may improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess the ability of CCPs to identify different types of PVAs using waveform analysis as well as factors related to this ability.

METHODS

We surveyed 12 university-affiliated medical ICUs (MICUs) in Tunisia. CCPs practicing in these MICUs were asked to visually identify 4 clinical cases, each corresponding to a different PVA. We collected the following characteristics regarding CCPs: scientific grade, years of experience, prior training in mechanical ventilation, prior exposure to waveform analysis, and the characteristics of the MICUs in which they practice. Respondents were categorized into 2 groups based on their ability to correctly identify PVAs (defined as the correct identification of at least 3 of the 4 PVA cases). Univariate analysis was performed to identify factors related to the correct identification of PVA.

RESULTS

Among 136 included CCPs, 72 (52.9%) responded to the present survey. The respondents comprised 59 (81.9%) residents, and 13 (18.1%) senior physicians. Further, 50 (69.4%) respondents had attended prior training in mechanical ventilation. Moreover, 21 (29.2%) of the respondents could correctly identify PVAs. Double-triggering was the most frequently identified PVA type, 43 (59.7%), followed by auto-triggering, 36 (50%); premature cycling, 28 (38.9%); and ineffective efforts, 25 (34.7%). Univariate analysis indicated that senior physicians had a better ability to correctly identify PVAs than residents (7 [53.8%] vs 14 [23.7%], P = .044).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed a significant deficiency in the accurate visual identification of PVAs among CCPs in the MICUs. When compared to residents, senior physicians exhibited a notably superior aptitude for correctly recognizing PVAs.

Specific Training Improves the Detection and Management of Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony

BACKGROUND

Patient-ventilator asynchrony is common in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. The proportion of health-care professionals capable of identifying and effectively managing different types of patient-ventilator asynchronies is limited. A few studies have developed specific training programs, but they mainly focused on improving patient-ventilator asynchrony detection without assessing the ability of health-care professionals to determine the possible causes.

METHODS

We conducted a 36-h training program focused on patient-ventilator asynchrony detection and management for health-care professionals from 20 hospitals in Latin America and Spain. The training program included 6 h of a live online lesson during which 120 patient-ventilator asynchrony cases were presented. After the 6-h training lesson, health-care professionals were required to complete a 1-h training session per day for the subsequent 30 d. A 30-question assessment tool was developed and used to assess health-care professionals before training, immediately after the 6-h training lecture, and after the 30 d of training (1-month follow-up).

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen health-care professionals participated in the study. The median (interquartile range) of the total number of correct answers in the pre-training, post-training, and 1-month follow-up were significantly different (12 [8.75-15], 18 [13.75-22], and 18.5 [14-23], respectively). The percentages of correct answers also differed significantly between the time assessments. Study participants significantly improved their performance between pre-training and post-training (P < .001). This performance was maintained after a 1-month follow-up (P = .95) for the questions related to the detection, determination of cause, and management of patient-ventilator asynchrony.

CONCLUSIONS

A specific 36-h training program significantly improved the ability of health-care professionals to detect patient-ventilator asynchrony, determine the possible causes of patient-ventilator asynchrony, and properly manage different types of patient-ventilator asynchrony.