Effect of Ventilator Mode on Ventilator-Free Days in Critically Ill Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2025-04-04 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2025.03.024
Kevin P Seitz, Bradley D Lloyd, Li Wang, Matthew S Shotwell, Edward T Qian, Amelia L Muhs, Roger K Richardson, J Craig Rooks, Vanessa Hennings-Williams, Claire E Sandoval, Whitney D Richardson, Tracy L Morgan, Amber N Thompson, Pamela G Hastings, Terry P Ring, Joanna L Stollings, Erica M Talbot, David J Krasinski, Bailey R DeCoursey, Tanya K Marvi, Stephanie C DeMasi, Kevin W Gibbs, Wesley H Self, Amanda S Mixon, Todd W Rice, Matthew W Semler, Jonathan D Casey
{"title":"Effect of Ventilator Mode on Ventilator-Free Days in Critically Ill Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Kevin P Seitz, Bradley D Lloyd, Li Wang, Matthew S Shotwell, Edward T Qian, Amelia L Muhs, Roger K Richardson, J Craig Rooks, Vanessa Hennings-Williams, Claire E Sandoval, Whitney D Richardson, Tracy L Morgan, Amber N Thompson, Pamela G Hastings, Terry P Ring, Joanna L Stollings, Erica M Talbot, David J Krasinski, Bailey R DeCoursey, Tanya K Marvi, Stephanie C DeMasi, Kevin W Gibbs, Wesley H Self, Amanda S Mixon, Todd W Rice, Matthew W Semler, Jonathan D Casey","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2025.03.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether the choice of ventilator mode affects outcomes for critically ill patients is unknown.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>What are the effects of three common ventilator modes (volume control vs pressure control vs adaptive pressure control) on death and duration of mechanical ventilation among critically ill adults?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover pilot trial among adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in a medical intensive care unit between November 1, 2022 and July 31, 2023. Each month, patients in the participating unit were assigned to receive volume control, pressure control, or adaptive pressure control during continuous mandatory ventilation. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days through 28 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 566 patients included in the primary analysis, the median proportion of ventilator mode assessments in the assigned mode during the first 72 hours was 100% in each group. The median number of ventilator-free days was 23 [IQR, 0-26] in the volume control group, 22 [0-26] in the pressure control group, and 24 [0-26] in the adaptive pressure control group (P=0.60). The median tidal volume was similar in the three groups, but the percentage of breaths larger than 8mL/kg of predicted body weight differed between volume control (median, 4.0%; IQR, 0.0-14.1), pressure control (10.6%; 0.0-31.5), and adaptive pressure control (4.7%; 0.0-19.2).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>This pilot trial establishes the feasibility of conducting a cluster-randomized, crossover trial of ventilator mode among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and demonstrates differences in intermediate outcomes that warrant further investigation in a larger trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.03.024","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

Background: Whether the choice of ventilator mode affects outcomes for critically ill patients is unknown.

Research question: What are the effects of three common ventilator modes (volume control vs pressure control vs adaptive pressure control) on death and duration of mechanical ventilation among critically ill adults?

Study design and methods: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover pilot trial among adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in a medical intensive care unit between November 1, 2022 and July 31, 2023. Each month, patients in the participating unit were assigned to receive volume control, pressure control, or adaptive pressure control during continuous mandatory ventilation. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days through 28 days.

Results: Among 566 patients included in the primary analysis, the median proportion of ventilator mode assessments in the assigned mode during the first 72 hours was 100% in each group. The median number of ventilator-free days was 23 [IQR, 0-26] in the volume control group, 22 [0-26] in the pressure control group, and 24 [0-26] in the adaptive pressure control group (P=0.60). The median tidal volume was similar in the three groups, but the percentage of breaths larger than 8mL/kg of predicted body weight differed between volume control (median, 4.0%; IQR, 0.0-14.1), pressure control (10.6%; 0.0-31.5), and adaptive pressure control (4.7%; 0.0-19.2).

Interpretation: This pilot trial establishes the feasibility of conducting a cluster-randomized, crossover trial of ventilator mode among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and demonstrates differences in intermediate outcomes that warrant further investigation in a larger trial.

呼吸机模式对危重成人无呼吸机天数的影响:一项随机临床试验。
研究背景呼吸机模式的选择是否会影响重症患者的预后尚不清楚:三种常见的呼吸机模式(容量控制 vs 压力控制 vs 自适应压力控制)对重症成人患者的死亡和机械通气持续时间有何影响?我们在 2022 年 11 月 1 日至 2023 年 7 月 31 日期间,在内科重症监护病房接受有创机械通气的成人中开展了一项务实、分组随机、交叉试验。每个月,参与试验的病房中的患者都会被分配到连续强制通气期间接受容量控制、压力控制或自适应压力控制。主要结果是28天内无呼吸机天数:在纳入主要分析的 566 名患者中,各组在最初 72 小时内按指定模式进行呼吸机模式评估的中位比例均为 100%。容量控制组无呼吸机天数的中位数为 23 [IQR,0-26],压力控制组为 22 [0-26],自适应压力控制组为 24 [0-26](P=0.60)。三组的潮气量中位数相似,但呼吸量大于 8 毫升/千克预测体重的百分比在容量控制组(中位数,4.0%;IQR,0.0-14.1)、压力控制组(10.6%;0.0-31.5)和自适应压力控制组(4.7%;0.0-19.2)之间存在差异:这项试点试验确定了在接受有创机械通气的成人重症患者中开展呼吸机模式分组随机交叉试验的可行性,并证明了中间结果的差异,值得在更大规模的试验中进一步研究。
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
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
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