Comparing the effects of adaptive support ventilation and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation on intubation duration and hospital stay after coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Effectiveness of Adaptive Support Ventilation in Facilitating Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation in Postoperative Patients

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) in facilitating postoperative weaning from mechanical ventilation in cardiac surgery patients.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess ASV in weaning postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Outcomes included early extubation, reintubation rates, time to extubation, and lengths of intensive care units and hospital stays.

SETTING

We searched electronic databases from inception to March 2023 and included randomized controlled trials that compared ASV with conventional ventilation methods in this population.

PARTICIPANTS

Postoperative cardiac surgery patients.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to assess result robustness. The meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1027 randomized patients. ASV was associated with a shorter time to extubation compared to conventional ventilation (random effects, mean difference -68.30 hours; 95% confidence interval, -115.50 to -21.09) with TSA providing a conclusive finding. While ASV indicated improved early extubation rates, no significant differences were found in reintubation rates or lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays, with these TSA results being inclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

ASV appears to facilitate a shorter time to extubation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients compared to conventional ventilation, suggesting benefits in accelerating the weaning process and reducing mechanical ventilation duration.

Effects of closed loop ventilation on ventilator settings, patient outcomes and ICU staff workloads - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lung protective ventilation is considered standard of care in the intensive care unit. However, modifying the ventilator settings can be challenging and is time consuming. Closed loop modes of ventilation are increasingly attractive for use in critically ill patients. With closed loop ventilation, settings that are typically managed by the ICU professionals are under control of the ventilator's algorithms.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the effectiveness, safety, efficacy and workload with currently available closed loop ventilation modes.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials search was performed in January 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials that compared closed loop ventilation with conventional ventilation modes and reported on effectiveness, safety, efficacy or workload.

RESULTS

The search identified 51 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Closed loop ventilation, when compared with conventional ventilation, demonstrates enhanced management of crucial ventilator variables and parameters essential for lung protection across diverse patient cohorts. Adverse events were seldom reported. Several studies indicate potential improvements in patient outcomes with closed loop ventilation; however, it is worth noting that these studies might have been underpowered to conclusively demonstrate such benefits. Closed loop ventilation resulted in a reduction of various aspects associated with the workload of ICU professionals but there have been no studies that studied workload in sufficient detail.

CONCLUSIONS

Closed loop ventilation modes are at least as effective in choosing correct ventilator settings as ventilation performed by ICU professionals and have the potential to reduce the workload related to ventilation. Nevertheless, there is a lack of sufficient research to comprehensively assess the overall impact of these modes on patient outcomes, and on the workload of ICU staff.

Length of Hospital Stay and Its Related Factors in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

One of the effective indicators used to determine the efficiency and optimal use of hospital resources is the length of stay (LOS). Then, we aimed to determine LOS and its related factors in Iran.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the online databases; Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, SID, MagIran, and Medlib from 1995 to 2022 using a combination of medical subject. STATA version 11 used for data analysis.

Results

Overall, 75 (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control) reports were identified. The average length of stay in Iranian hospitals was 6.7 (95% CI: 5.32 -7.74) d. There was a significant relationship between the length of stay in the hospital and different wards of hospital (P=0.001). The average of men' LOS was longer than women were [6.9 (95% CI: 5.32 -7.74) vs. 3.9 (95% CI: 1.67-9.41)]. Moreover, the average LOS before and after the Health Transformation Plan (HTP) in Iran has changed, so that it has increased from 5.8 (95% CI: 4.39 -7.86) to 7.1 (95% CI: 5.59 -9.25) d after HTP (P=0.30).

Conclusion

The average length of stay of patients in Iranian hospitals is more than the expected index of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education and is in the unfavorable range (> four days). Moreover, considering the direct effect of the type of departments on LOS; therefore, hospital managers should pay more attention to hospital processes using new process-oriented and customer-oriented management approaches.

Comparison of clinical outcomes in critical patients undergoing different mechanical ventilation modes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of different mechanical ventilation modes on critical patients.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to November 15, 2022 for randomized controlled trials on the application of different mechanical ventilation modes in critical patients. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. R4.2.1 was used for this network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-eight RCTs involving 3,189 patients were included. The interventions in these RCTs included NAVA (neurally adjusted ventilatory assist), PAV (proportional assist ventilation), ASV (adaptive support ventilation), Smartcare/PS (Smartcare/pressure support), PSV (pressure support ventilation), PSV_ATC (pressure support ventilation_automatic tube compensation), and SIMV (synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation). The network meta-analysis showed that, compared with the PSV group, there was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, and hospital stay between NAVA, SIMV, AVS, PAV, Smartcare/PS, and PSV_ATC groups. Compared with PSV, PAV improved the success rate of withdrawal of ventilator [OR = 3.07, 95%CI (1.21, 8.52)]. Compared with PSV and PAV, NAVA reduced mortality in the ICU [OR = 0.63, 95%CI (0.43, 0.93); OR = 0.45, 95%CI (0.21, 0.97)].

Conclusion

NAVA can reduce mortality in ICU, and PAV may increase the risk of withdrawal of the ventilator. There was no significant difference between PSV and other mechanical ventilation modes (NAVA, SIMV, AVS, PAV, Smartcare/PS, and PSV_ATC) in the duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, or hospital stay. Due to the limitations, more high-quality studies are needed to verify these findings.

Influence of ventilatory strategies on outcomes and length of hospital stay: assist-control and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation modes

The use of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support ventilation (SIMV + PSV) mode has been discontinued. This study analyzed the association between medical outcomes related to the use of assist-control (A/C) and SIMV + PSV in an intensive care unit. In this observational and retrospective study, modes of ventilation and medical data were collected from electronic medical records for three consecutive years and were related to medical outcomes (mortality), duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay and the need for tracheostomy. Participants were divided into groups according to the modes of ventilation: A/C and SIMV + PSV. Statistical analyses were performed in the R environment. Alpha = 0.05. The using chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. 345 adult participants were included; 211/345 (61.16%) were males. Of the participants, 151/345 (43.77%) were on SIMV + PSV and 194/345 (56.23%) were on A/C. The comparative analysis between the modes of ventilation showed no significant differences in length of hospital stay (p = 0.675), duration of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.952), mortality (p = 0.241), failed extubation (p = 0.411) and the need for tracheostomy (p = 0.301). SIMV + PSV as a mode of ventilation showed similar statistical results to the A/C mode, when compared to analyzed medical outcomes.

Adaptive Support Ventilation Reduces the Incidence of Atelectasis in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Pulmonary complications are common following cardiac surgery and can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Atelectasis is the most common respiratory complication following cardiac surgery. One of the most important methods for reducing pulmonary complications is supportive care with protective ventilation strategies. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) on atelectasis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

In this single-blind randomized clinical trial, 115 patients, undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, were randomly allocated into 2 groups: 57 patients in the intervention and 58 patients in the control group. Patients in the intervention group were weaned with ASV, while patients in the control group were managed using synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) and pressure support. The incidence of atelectasis, duration of mechanical ventilation, manual ventilator setting, arterial blood gas measurements, and length of hospital stay were compared between the groups.

Results

The incidence of atelectasis, number of changes in the manual ventilator setting, number of alarms, and length of hospital stay reduced in the intervention group. However, duration of mechanical ventilation and number of ABG measurements were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

The ASV mode could reduce the incidence of atelectasis and length of hospital stay. However, it did not reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. It seems that ASV is not a superior mode for faster extubation.