An International Factorial Vignette-Based Survey of Intubation Decisions in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Christopher J Yarnell, Arviy Paranthaman, Peter Reardon, Federico Angriman, Thiago Bassi, Giacomo Bellani, Laurent Brochard, Harm Jan De Grooth, Laura Dragoi, Syafruddin Gaus, Paul Glover, Ewan C Goligher, Kimberley Lewis, Baoli Li, Hashim Kareemi, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Sangeeta Mehta, Ricard Mellado-Artigas, Julie Moore, Idunn Morris, Georgiana Roman-Sarita, Tai Pham, Jariya Sereeyotin, George Tomlinson, Hannah Wozniak, Takeshi Yoshida, Rob Fowler
{"title":"An International Factorial Vignette-Based Survey of Intubation Decisions in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.","authors":"Christopher J Yarnell, Arviy Paranthaman, Peter Reardon, Federico Angriman, Thiago Bassi, Giacomo Bellani, Laurent Brochard, Harm Jan De Grooth, Laura Dragoi, Syafruddin Gaus, Paul Glover, Ewan C Goligher, Kimberley Lewis, Baoli Li, Hashim Kareemi, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Sangeeta Mehta, Ricard Mellado-Artigas, Julie Moore, Idunn Morris, Georgiana Roman-Sarita, Tai Pham, Jariya Sereeyotin, George Tomlinson, Hannah Wozniak, Takeshi Yoshida, Rob Fowler","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Intubation is a common procedure in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with minimal evidence to guide decision-making. We conducted a survey of when to intubate patients with AHRF to measure the influence of clinical variables on intubation decision-making and quantify variability.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Factorial vignette-based survey asking \"Would you recommend intubation?\" Respondents selected an ordinal recommendation from a 5-point scale ranging from \"Definite no\" to \"Definite yes\" for up to ten randomly allocated vignettes. We used Bayesian proportional odds modeling, with clustering by individual, country, and region, to calculate mean odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Anonymous web-based survey.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Clinicians involved in the decision to intubate.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Between September 2023 and January 2024, 2,294 respondents entered 17,235 vignette responses in 74 countries (most common: Canada [29%], United States [26%], France [9%], Japan [8%], and Thailand [5%]). Respondents were attending physicians (63%), nurses (13%), trainee physicians (9%), respiratory therapists (9%), and other (6%). Lower oxygen saturation, higher Fio2, noninvasive ventilation compared with high-flow, tachypnea, neck muscle use, abdominal paradox, drowsiness, and inability to obey were associated with increased odds of intubation; diagnosis, vasopressors, and duration of symptoms were not. Nurses were less likely than physicians to recommend intubation. Within a country, the odds of recommending intubation changed between clinicians by an average factor of 2.60; within a region, the same odds changed between countries by 1.56. Respondents from Canada (OR, 0.53; CrI, 0.40-0.70) and the United States (OR, 0.63; CrI, 0.48-0.84) were less likely to recommend intubation than respondents from most other countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this international, multiprofessional survey of 2294 clinicians, intubation for patients with AHRF was mostly decided based on oxygenation, breathing pattern, and consciousness, but there was important variation across individuals and countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006494","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Intubation is a common procedure in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with minimal evidence to guide decision-making. We conducted a survey of when to intubate patients with AHRF to measure the influence of clinical variables on intubation decision-making and quantify variability.

Design: Factorial vignette-based survey asking "Would you recommend intubation?" Respondents selected an ordinal recommendation from a 5-point scale ranging from "Definite no" to "Definite yes" for up to ten randomly allocated vignettes. We used Bayesian proportional odds modeling, with clustering by individual, country, and region, to calculate mean odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

Setting: Anonymous web-based survey.

Subjects: Clinicians involved in the decision to intubate.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Between September 2023 and January 2024, 2,294 respondents entered 17,235 vignette responses in 74 countries (most common: Canada [29%], United States [26%], France [9%], Japan [8%], and Thailand [5%]). Respondents were attending physicians (63%), nurses (13%), trainee physicians (9%), respiratory therapists (9%), and other (6%). Lower oxygen saturation, higher Fio2, noninvasive ventilation compared with high-flow, tachypnea, neck muscle use, abdominal paradox, drowsiness, and inability to obey were associated with increased odds of intubation; diagnosis, vasopressors, and duration of symptoms were not. Nurses were less likely than physicians to recommend intubation. Within a country, the odds of recommending intubation changed between clinicians by an average factor of 2.60; within a region, the same odds changed between countries by 1.56. Respondents from Canada (OR, 0.53; CrI, 0.40-0.70) and the United States (OR, 0.63; CrI, 0.48-0.84) were less likely to recommend intubation than respondents from most other countries.

Conclusions: In this international, multiprofessional survey of 2294 clinicians, intubation for patients with AHRF was mostly decided based on oxygenation, breathing pattern, and consciousness, but there was important variation across individuals and countries.

对急性低氧血症呼吸衰竭患者插管决定的国际事实性小插图调查。
目的:插管是急性低氧性呼吸衰竭(AHRF)的常见程序,但指导决策的证据极少。我们对 AHRF 患者何时插管进行了调查,以衡量临床变量对插管决策的影响并量化变异性:设计:基于因素的小插图调查,询问 "您是否建议插管?受访者从 "肯定不建议 "到 "肯定建议 "的 5 点量表中为多达 10 个随机分配的小故事选择一个序数建议。我们使用贝叶斯比例几率模型,按个人、国家和地区进行聚类,计算出平均几率比(ORs)和 95% 可信区间(CrIs):匿名网络调查:干预措施:无:测量和主要结果2023 年 9 月至 2024 年 1 月期间,74 个国家/地区(最常见的国家/地区:加拿大 [29%]、美国 [26%]、法国 [9%]、日本 [8%] 和泰国 [5%])的 2294 名受访者输入了 17235 个小插图回答。受访者包括主治医生(63%)、护士(13%)、实习医生(9%)、呼吸治疗师(9%)和其他人员(6%)。较低的血氧饱和度、较高的 Fio2、无创通气与高流量通气相比、呼吸过速、颈部肌肉使用、腹部悖论、嗜睡和无法服从与插管几率增加有关;诊断、血管加压剂和症状持续时间则与之无关。护士比医生更少建议插管。在一个国家内,不同临床医生推荐插管的几率平均相差 2.60 倍;在一个地区内,不同国家之间的几率相差 1.56 倍。来自加拿大(OR,0.53;CrI,0.40-0.70)和美国(OR,0.63;CrI,0.48-0.84)的受访者比来自大多数其他国家的受访者更不可能建议插管:在这项由 2294 名临床医生参与的国际性多专业调查中,AHRF 患者的插管大多是根据氧合、呼吸模式和意识决定的,但不同个体和国家之间存在很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信