Invasive and Noninvasive Ventilation in the Emergency Department

A Comparative Study on Predication of Appropriate Mechanical Ventilation Mode through Machine Learning Approach

Ventilation mode is one of the most crucial ventilator settings, selected and set by knowledgeable critical care therapists in a critical care unit. The application of a particular ventilation mode must be patient-specific and patient-interactive. The main aim of this study is to provide a detailed outline regarding ventilation mode settings and determine the best machine learning method to create a deployable model for the appropriate selection of ventilation mode on a per breath basis. Per-breath patient data is utilized, preprocessed and finally a data frame is created consisting of five feature columns (inspiratory and expiratory tidal volume, minimum pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure, and previous positive end-expiratory pressure) and one output column (output column consisted of modes to be predicted). The data frame has been split into training and testing datasets with a test size of 30%. Six machine learning algorithms were trained and compared for performance, based on the accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and precision. The output shows that the Random-Forest Algorithm was the most precise and accurate in predicting all ventilation modes correctly, out of the all the machine learning algorithms trained. Thus, the Random-Forest machine learning technique can be utilized for predicting optimal ventilation mode setting, if it is properly trained with the help of the most relevant data. Aside from ventilation mode, control parameter settings, alarm settings and other settings may also be adjusted for the mechanical ventilation process utilizing appropriate machine learning, particularly deep learning approaches.

The management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus causing severe acute respiratory disease occurred in Wuhan, China. It is an emerging infectious disease with widespread and rapid infectiousness. The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern on 31 January 2020. Severe COVID-19 patients should be managed and treated in a critical care unit. Performing a chest X-ray/CT can judge the severity of the disease. The management of COVID-19 patients includes epidemiological risk and patient isolation; treatment entails general supportive care, respiratory support, symptomatic treatment, nutritional support, psychological intervention, etc. The prognosis of the patients depends upon the severity of the disease, the patient's age, the underlying diseases of the patients, and the patient's overall medical condition. The management of COVID-19 should focus on early diagnosis, immediate isolation, general and optimized supportive care, and infection prevention and control.

Management of Respiratory Failure

The management of acute respiratory failure varies according to the etiology. A clear understanding of physiology of respiration and pathophysiological mechanisms of respiratory failure is mandatory for managing these patients. The extent of abnormality in arterial blood gas values is a result of the balance between the severity of disease and the degree of compensation by cardiopulmonary system. Normal blood gases do not mean that there is an absence of disease because the homeostatic system can compensate. However, an abnormal arterial blood gas value reflects uncompensated disease that might be life threatening.

Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians' Knowledge of Mechanical Ventilation

Introduction

Although emergency physicians frequently intubate patients, management of mechanical ventilation has not been emphasized in emergency medicine (EM) education or clinical practice. The objective of this study was to quantify EM attendings’ education, experience, and knowledge regarding mechanical ventilation in the emergency department.

Methods

We developed a survey of academic EM attendings’ educational experiences with ventilators and a knowledge assessment tool with nine clinical questions. EM attendings at key teaching hospitals for seven EM residency training programs in the northeastern United States were invited to participate in this survey study. We performed correlation and regression analyses to evaluate the relationship between attendings’ scores on the assessment instrument and their training, education, and comfort with ventilation.

Results

Of 394 EM attendings surveyed, 211 responded (53.6%). Of respondents, 74.5% reported receiving three or fewer hours of ventilation-related education from EM sources over the past year and 98 (46%) reported receiving between 0–1 hour of education. The overall correct response rate for the assessment tool was 73.4%, with a standard deviation of 19.9. The factors associated with a higher score were completion of an EM residency, prior emphasis on mechanical ventilation during one’s own residency, working in a setting where an emergency physician bears primary responsibility for ventilator management, and level of comfort with managing ventilated patients. Physicians’ comfort was associated with the frequency of ventilator changes and EM management of ventilation, as well as hours of education.

Conclusion

EM attendings report caring for mechanically ventilated patients frequently, but most receive fewer than three educational hours a year on mechanical ventilation, and nearly half receive 0–1 hour. Physicians’ performance on an assessment tool for mechanical ventilation is most strongly correlated with their self-reported comfort with mechanical ventilation.

Initial mechanical ventilator settings and lung protective ventilation in the ED

OBJECTIVE

Mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes has been shown to improve outcomes for patients both with and without acute respiratory distress syndrome. This study aims to characterize mechanically ventilated patients in the emergency department (ED), describe the initial ED ventilator settings, and assess for associations between lung protective ventilation strategies in the ED and outcomes.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study of mechanical ventilation at 3 academic EDs. We defined lung protective ventilation as a tidal volume of less than or equal to 8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and compared outcomes for patients ventilated with lung protective vs non-lung protective ventilation, including inhospital mortality, ventilator days, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Data from 433 patients were analyzed. Altered mental status without respiratory pathology was the most common reason for intubation, followed by trauma and respiratory failure. Two hundred sixty-one patients (60.3%) received lung protective ventilation, but most patients were ventilated with a low positive end-expiratory pressure, high fraction of inspired oxygen strategy. Patients were ventilated in the ED for a mean of 5 hours and 7 minutes but had few ventilator adjustments. Outcomes were not significantly different between patients receiving lung protective vs non-lung protective ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of ED patients were ventilated with non-lung protective ventilation as well as with low positive end-expiratory pressure and high fraction of inspired oxygen. Despite a mean ED ventilation time of more than 5 hours, few patients had adjustments made to their ventilators.

Emergency medicine residents' knowledge of mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Although Emergency physicians frequently intubate patients, management of mechanical ventilation has not been emphasized in emergency medicine (EM) residency curricula.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to quantify EM residents' education, experience, and knowledge regarding mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

We developed a survey of residents' educational experiences with ventilators and an assessment tool with nine clinical questions. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between residents' scores on the assessment instrument and their training, education, and comfort with ventilation.

RESULTS

Of 312 EM residents, 218 responded (69.9%). The overall correct response rate for the assessment tool was 73.3%, standard deviation (SD) ± 22.3. Seventy-seven percent (n = 167) of respondents reported ≤ 3 h of mechanical ventilation education in their residency curricula over the past year. Residents reported frequently caring for ventilated patients in the ED, as 64% (n = 139) recalled caring for ≥ 4 ventilated patients per month. Fifty-three percent (n = 116) of residents endorsed feeling comfortable caring for mechanically ventilated ED patients. In multiregression analysis, the only significant predictor of total test score was residents' comfort with caring for mechanically ventilated patients (F = 10.963, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EM residents report caring for mechanically ventilated patients frequently, but receive little education on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, as residents' performance on the assessment tool is only correlated with their self-reported comfort with caring for ventilated patients, these results demonstrate an opportunity for increased educational focus on mechanical ventilation management in EM residency training.

Basics of mechanical ventilation for dogs and cats

Respiratory failure may occur due to hypoventilation or hypoxemia. Regardless of the cause, emergent anesthesia and intubation, accompanied by positive pressure ventilation, may be necessary and life saving. Long-term mechanical ventilation requires some specialized equipment and knowledge; however, short-term ventilation can be accomplished without the use of an intensive care unit ventilator, and can provide oxygen supplementation and carbon dioxide removal in critical patients.