One-year experience with an acute respiratory distress syndrome standard operating procedure on intensive care unit

Development and Content Validation of a Multidisciplinary Standardized Management Pathway for Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

Treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex. Evidence-based therapies that can improve survival and guidelines advocating their use exist; however, implementation is inconsistent. Our objective was to develop and validate an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed standardized management pathway for hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome to improve adherence to best practice.

Design:

A standardized management pathway was developed using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multidisciplinary group of ICU clinicians. The proposed pathway was externally validated with a survey involving multidisciplinary stakeholders and clinicians.

Setting:

In-person meeting and web-based surveys of ICU clinicians from 17 adult ICUs in the province of Alberta, Canada.

Intervention:

Not applicable.

Measurements and Main Results:

The consensus panel was comprised of 30 ICU clinicians (4 nurses, 10 respiratory therapists, 15 intensivists, 1 nurse practitioner; median years of practice 17 [interquartile range, 13–21]). Ninety-one components were serially rated and revised over two rounds of online and one in-person review. The final pathway included 46 elements. For the validation survey, 692 responses (including 59% nurses, 33% respiratory therapists, 7% intensivists and 1% nurse practitioners) were received. Agreement of greater than 75% was achieved on 43 of 46 pathway elements.

Conclusions:

A 46-element evidence-informed hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome standardized management pathway was developed and demonstrated to have content validity.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

OBJECTIVE:

Low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning are recommended therapies yet underused in acute respiratory distress syndrome. We aimed to assess the role of interventions focused on implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

DATA SOURCES:

PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION:

We searched the four databases from January 1, 2001, to January 28, 2021, for studies that met the predefined search criteria. Selected studies focused on interventions to improve implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction using a standardized form.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Due to methodological heterogeneity of included studies, meta-analysis was not feasible; thus, we provided a narrative summary and assessment of the literature. Eight nonrandomized studies met our eligibility criteria. Most studies looked at interventions to improve adherence to low tidal volume ventilation. Most interventions focused on education for providers. Studies were primarily conducted in the ICU and involved trainees, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and critical care nurses. Although overall quality of the studies was very low, the primary outcomes of interest suggest that interventions could improve adherence to or implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Measurements and Main Results:

Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction using a standardized form. Due to methodologic heterogeneity of included studies, meta-analysis was not feasible; thus, we provided a narrative summary and assessment of the literature. Eight nonrandomized studies met our eligibility criteria. Most studies looked at interventions to improve adherence to low tidal volume ventilation. Most interventions focused on education for providers. Studies were primarily conducted in the ICU and involved trainees, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and critical care nurses. Although overall quality of the studies was very low, the primary outcomes of interest suggest that interventions could improve adherence to or implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Conclusions:

There is a dearth of literature addressing interventions to improve implementation of evidence-based practices in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Existing interventions to improve clinician knowledge and facilitate application of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning may be effective, but supporting studies have significant limitations.

Care bundles for improving outcomes in patients with COVID-19 or related conditions in intensive care - a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the strain of coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause serious illness in some people resulting in admission to intensive care units (ICU) and frequently, ventilatory support for acute respiratory failure. Evaluating ICU care, and what is effective in improving outcomes for these patients is critical. Care bundles, a small set of evidence-based interventions, delivered together consistently, may improve patient outcomes. To identify the extent of the available evidence on the use of care bundles in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a scoping review to inform WHO guideline discussions. This review does not assess the effectiveness of the findings, assess risk of bias, or assess the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). As this review was commissioned to inform guideline discussions, it was done rapidly over a three-week period from 26 October to 18 November 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and describe the available evidence on the use of care bundles in the ICU for patients with COVID-19 or related conditions (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) viral pneumonia or pneumonitis), or both. In carrying out the review the focus was on characterising the evidence base and not evaluating the effectiveness or safety of the care bundles or their component parts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of all designs that reported on patients who are critically ill with COVID-19, ARDS, viral pneumonia or pneumonitis, in the ICU setting, where a care bundle was implemented in providing care, were eligible for inclusion. One review author (VS) screened all records on title and abstract. A second review author (DR) checked 20% of excluded and included records; agreement was 99.4% and 100% respectively on exclude/include decisions. Two review authors (VS and DR) independently screened all records at full-text level. VS and DR resolved any disagreements through discussion and consensus, or referral to a third review author (AN) as required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (VS) extracted the data and a second review author (DR) checked 20% of this for accuracy. As the review was not designed to synthesise effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterise the certainty of the evidence (GRADE), we mapped the extracted data and presented them in tabular format based on the patient condition; that is patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, patients with ARDS, patients with any influenza or viral pneumonia, patients with severe respiratory failure, and patients with mixed conditions. We have also provided a narrative summary of the findings from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies and identified three ongoing studies. The studies were of variable designs and included a systematic review of standardised approaches to caring for critically ill patients in ICU, including but not exclusive to care bundles (1 study), a randomised trial (1 study), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (4 studies), before and after studies (7 studies), observational quality improvement reports (4 studies), case series/case reports (3 studies) and audit (1 study). The studies were conducted in eight countries, most commonly China (5 studies) and the USA (4 studies), were published between 1999 and 2020, and involved over 2000 participants in total. Studies categorised participant conditions patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (7 studies), patients with ARDS (7 studies), patients with another influenza or viral pneumonia (5 studies), patients with severe respiratory failure (1 study), and patients with mixed conditions (1 study). The care bundles described in the studies involved multiple diverse practices. Guidance on ventilator settings (10 studies), restrictive fluid management (8 studies), sedation (7 studies) and prone positioning (7 studies) were identified most frequently, while only one study mentioned chest X-ray. None of the included studies reported the prespecified outcomes ICU-acquired weakness (muscle wasting, weight loss) and users' experience adapting care bundles. Of the remaining prespecified outcomes, 14 studies reported death in ICU, nine reported days of ventilation (or ventilator-free days), nine reported length of stay in ICU in days, five reported death in hospital, three reported length of stay in hospital in days, and three reported adherence to the bundle.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review has identified 21 studies on care bundle use in critically ill patients in ICU with COVID-19, ARDS, viral influenza or pneumonia and severe respiratory failure. The data for patients with COVID-19 specifically are limited, derived mainly from observational quality improvement or clinical experiential accounts. Research is required, urgently, to further assess care bundle use and optimal components of these bundles in this patient cohort. The care bundles described were also varied, with guidance on ventilator settings described in 10 care bundles, while chest X-ray was part mentioned in one care bundle in one study only. None of the studies identified in this scoping review measured users' experience of adapting care bundles. Optimising care bundle implementation requires that the components of the care bundle are collectively and consistently applied. Data on challenges, barriers and facilitators to implementation are needed. A formal synthesis of the outcome data presented in this review and a critical appraisal of the evidence is required by a subsequent effectiveness review. This subsequent review should further explore effect estimates across the included studies.

Standardized Management for Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) and ARDS is complex. Standardized management of HRF and ARDS may improve adherence to evidence-informed practice and improve outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the effect of standardized treatment compared with usual care on survival of patients with HRF and ARDS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web-of-Science were searched (inception to 2018). Included studies were randomized clinical trials or quasi-experimental studies that examined the effect of standardized treatment (care-protocol, care-pathway, or bundle) compared with usual treatment among mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to an ICU with HRF or ARDS. Study characteristics, pathway components, and patient outcomes were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

From 15,932 unique citations, 14 studies were included in the systematic review (three randomized clinical trials and 11 quasi-experimental studies). Twelve studies (including 5,767 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized management of HRF was associated with a 23% relative reduction in mortality (relative risk, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.91; I², 70%; P = .002). In studies targeting patients with ARDS (n = 8), a 21% pooled mortality reduction was observed (relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88; I², 3.1%). Standardized management was associated with increased 28-day ventilator-free days (weighted mean difference, 3.48 days; 95% CI, 2.43-4.54 days; P < .001). Standardized management was also associated with a reduction in tidal volume (weighted mean difference, -1.80 mL/kg predicted body weight; 95% CI, -2.80 to -0.80 mL/kg predicted body weight; P < .001). Meta-regression demonstrated that the reduction in mortality was associated with provision of lower tidal volume (P = .045).

INTERPRETATION

When compared with usual treatment, standardized treatment of patients with HRF and ARDS is associated with increased ventilator-free days, lower tidal volume ventilation, and lower mortality. ICUs should consider the use of standardized treatment to improve the processes and outcomes of care for patients with HRF and ARDS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42019099921; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Why is prone positioning so unpopular?

Recent studies have shown acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to be underdiagnosed and inadequately treated, as evidenced by underutilization of low-tidal volume ventilation. Despite a proven survival benefit in patients with severe ARDS, studies have also shown underutilization of prone positioning. Many questions persist as to the reasons for prone positioning's unpopularity. Additional studies are required to uncover the causes of this prone positioning underutilization phenomenon.