Etiology, incidence, and outcomes of patient-ventilator asynchrony in critically-ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation

Knowledge and associated factors of healthcare professionals in detecting patient-ventilator asynchrony using waveform analysis at intensive care units of the federal public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2023

BACKGROUND

The interaction between the patient and the ventilator is often disturbed, resulting in patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA). Asynchrony can lead to respiratory failure, increased artificial ventilation time, prolonged hospitalization, and escalated healthcare costs. Professionals' knowledge regarding waveform analysis has significant implications for improving patient outcomes and minimizing ventilation-related adverse events. Studies investigating the knowledge of healthcare professionals on patient-ventilator asynchrony and its associated factors in the Ethiopian context are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the knowledge of healthcare professionals about using waveform analysis to detect asynchrony.

METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted on 237 healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the intensive care units (ICUs) of federal public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from December 2022 to May 2023. The data were collected using a structured and pretested interviewer-administered questionnaire. Then, the collected data were cleaned, coded, and entered into Epi data V-4.2.2 and exported to SPSS V-27 for analysis. After description, associations were analyzed using binary logistic regression. Variables with a P-value of < 0.25 in the bivariable analysis were transferred to the multivariable analysis. Statistical significance was declared using 95% confidence intervals, and the strengths of associations were reported using adjusted odds ratios (AORs).

RESULTS

A total of 237 HCPs participated in the study with a response rate of 100%. Half (49.8%) of the participants were females. The mean age of the participants was 29 years (SD = 3.57). Overall, 10.5% (95% CI: 6.9-15.2) of the participants had good knowledge of detecting PVA using waveform analysis. In the logistic regression, the number of MV-specific trainings and the training site had a statistically significant association with knowledge of HCPs. HCPs who attended more frequent MV training were more likely to have good knowledge than their counterparts [AOR = 6.88 (95% CI: 2.61-15.45)]. Additionally, the odds of good knowledge among professionals who attended offsite training were 2.6 times higher than those among professionals trained onsite [AOR = 2.63 (95% CI: 1.36-7.98)].

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of ICU healthcare professionals about the identification of PVA using waveform analysis is low. In addition, the study also showed that attending offsite MV training and repeated MV training sessions were independently associated with good knowledge. Consequently, the study findings magnify the relevance of providing frequent and specific training sessions focused on waveform analysis to boost the knowledge of HCPs.

The Evolution of Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation

Intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) is one kind of breath sequence used to classify a mode of ventilation. IMV is defined as the ability for spontaneous breaths (patient triggered and patient cycled) to exist between mandatory breaths (machine triggered or machine cycled). Over the course of more than a century, IMV has evolved into 4 distinct varieties, each with its own advantages and disadvantages in serving the goals of mechanical ventilation (ie, safety, comfort, and liberation). The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of IMV, review relevant supporting evidence, and discuss the rationales for each of the 4 varieties. Also included is a brief overview of the background information required for a proper perspective of the purpose and design of the innovations. Understanding these different forms of IMV is essential to recognizing the similarities and differences among many dozens of different modes of ventilation. This recognition is important for clinical application, education of caregivers, and research in mechanical ventilation.

Brain-lung interactions and mechanical ventilation in patients with isolated brain injury

During the last decade, experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated that isolated acute brain injury (ABI) may cause severe dysfunction of peripheral extracranial organs and systems. Of all potential target organs and systems, the lung appears to be the most vulnerable to damage after brain injury (BI). The pathophysiology of these brain–lung interactions are complex and involve neurogenic pulmonary oedema, inflammation, neurodegeneration, neurotransmitters, immune suppression and dysfunction of the autonomic system. The systemic effects of inflammatory mediators in patients with BI create a systemic inflammatory environment that makes extracranial organs vulnerable to secondary procedures that enhance inflammation, such as mechanical ventilation (MV), surgery and infections. Indeed, previous studies have shown that in the presence of a systemic inflammatory environment, specific neurointensive care interventions—such as MV—may significantly contribute to the development of lung injury, regardless of the underlying mechanisms. Although current knowledge supports protective ventilation in patients with BI, it must be born in mind that ABI-related lung injury has distinct mechanisms that involve complex interactions between the brain and lungs. In this context, the role of extracerebral pathophysiology, especially in the lungs, has often been overlooked, as most physicians focus on intracranial injury and cerebral dysfunction. The present review aims to fill this gap by describing the pathophysiology of complications due to lung injuries in patients with a single ABI, and discusses the possible impact of MV in neurocritical care patients with normal lungs.