Global Current Practices of Ventilatory Support Management in COVID-19 Patients: An International Survey.
COVID-19
HFNC
NIV
clinical management
mechanical ventilation
proning
respiratory
ventilation
Journal
Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare
ISSN: 1178-2390
Titre abrégé: J Multidiscip Healthc
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101512691
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
08
2020
accepted:
19
10
2020
entrez:
26
11
2020
pubmed:
27
11
2020
medline:
27
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12-16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors.
METHODS
METHODS
An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12-16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33239884
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S279031
pii: 279031
pmc: PMC7680685
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1635-1648Informations de copyright
© 2020 Alqahtani et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
DDR received research equipment support (Draeger) and working as consultant in (Philips and Mallinckrodt) and non-financial support from Draeger, outside the submitted work. CO has a patent 102016000114357 with royalties paid from Intersurgical SpA. The authors report no other competing interests in this work.
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):837-840
pubmed: 32123994
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 21;117(16):9122-9126
pubmed: 32245814
J Physiother. 2020 Apr;66(2):73-82
pubmed: 32312646
Pulmonology. 2020 Jul - Aug;26(4):213-220
pubmed: 32362507
Chest. 2015 May;147(5):1336-1343
pubmed: 25392954
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632
Crit Care Med. 2020 May;48(5):654-662
pubmed: 31923030
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1549-1550
pubmed: 32176764
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Oct;38(10):1647-53
pubmed: 22777516
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1225-1228
pubmed: 32178769
Eur Respir Rev. 2020 Jun 3;29(156):
pubmed: 32499306
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):854-887
pubmed: 32222812
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e480
pubmed: 32109372
PLoS One. 2020 May 11;15(5):e0233147
pubmed: 32392262
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Aug;46(8):1624-1626
pubmed: 32383060
Trop Med Infect Dis. 2020 May 15;5(2):
pubmed: 32429038
JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2052-2059
pubmed: 32320003
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 22;351(4):327-36
pubmed: 15269312
Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394(10213):1966
pubmed: 31789205
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 21;4:CD013582
pubmed: 32315451
New Microbes New Infect. 2020 Apr 14;35:100679
pubmed: 32322401
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2338-2340
pubmed: 32412606
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1015-1018
pubmed: 32197103
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):46
pubmed: 28466462
Leukemia. 2020 Aug;34(8):1977-1978
pubmed: 32528041
Respir Care. 2010 Feb;55(2):175-80; discussion 180-3
pubmed: 20105343
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):833-836
pubmed: 32125458
Can J Anaesth. 2020 Sep;67(9):1217-1248
pubmed: 32542464
Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Jan 6;10(1):3
pubmed: 31907704
Crit Care Clin. 2011 Jul;27(3):469-86
pubmed: 21742212
World J Crit Care Med. 2016 May 04;5(2):121-36
pubmed: 27152255
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Dec 15;192(12):1420-30
pubmed: 26398835
Ann Thorac Med. 2007 Oct;2(4):176-9
pubmed: 19727373
Crit Care. 2020 Apr 14;24(1):145
pubmed: 32290850
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1545-1546
pubmed: 32167538
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):506-517
pubmed: 32272080
Heart Lung. 2020 Sep - Oct;49(5):630-636
pubmed: 32362397
Adv Respir Med. 2019;87(1):36-45
pubmed: 30830962
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 May;94:91-95
pubmed: 32173574
Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun;48(6):e440-e469
pubmed: 32224769
Crit Care Med. 1991 Feb;19(2):275-8
pubmed: 1989763
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):934-943
pubmed: 32167524
Respir Care. 1992 Aug;37(8):882-6
pubmed: 10145778
S Afr Med J. 2020 Apr 08;110(5):343-344
pubmed: 32657711
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):753-4
pubmed: 26903331
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1773-1774
pubmed: 32219367
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 May - Jun;35:101613
pubmed: 32126292