Search

Introduction Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is associated with several complications. Placement of a long-term airway (tracheostomy) is also associated with short and long-term risks for patients. Nevertheless, tracheostomies are placed to help reduce the duration of IMV, facilitate weaning and eventually undergo successful decannulation. Methods We performed a narrative review by searching PubMed, Embase and Medline databases to identify relevant citations using the search terms (with synonyms and closely related words) “non-invasive ventilation”, “tracheostomy” and “weaning”. We identified 13 publications comprising retrospective or prospective studies in which non-invasive ventilation (NIV) was one of the strategies used during weaning from IMV and/or tracheostomy decannulation. Results In some studies, patients with tracheostomies represented a subgroup of patients on IMV. Most of the studies involved patients with underlying cardiopulmonary comorbidities and conditions, and primarily involved specialized weaning centres. Not all studies provided data on decannulation, although those which did, report high success rates for weaning and decannulation when using NIV as an adjunct to weaning patient off ventilatory support. However, a significant percentage of patients still needed home NIV after discharge. Conclusions The review supports a potential role for NIV in weaning patients with a tracheostomy either off the ventilator and/or with its decannulation. Additional research is needed to develop weaning protocols and better characterize the role of NIV during weaning.

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: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. / 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: 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.

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 An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. 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 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.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is considered a frequent and serious lung disease that is continuously linked with an increase in both morbidity and mortality. Mechanical ventilation (MV) is considered as the gold standard therapy in the management of ARDS; although MV support is lifesaving, it is also associated with potentially harmful threats such as ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). It is understood from the physiological background itself that VILI has a considerable impact on the prognosis of a patient. Therefore, the current studies show that focusing on key therapeutic elements causing over-distension of the available lung units is more imperative for indicating further damage than how much pressure is used to ventilate. In the past two decades, there has been an increasing trend toward using driving pressure (DP) in the management of ARDS patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Recent studies propose that measuring DP in ARDS patients, in addition to the other respiratory mechanics measurements, may support selecting and customizing appropriate ventilator parameters, which, in turn, improves patient outcomes and decreases mortality rate. Therefore, this review is intended to outline the physiological meaning of DP, the clinical measurement and application of DP and factors limiting DP. Furthermore, measuring DP in non-ARDS patients and recent clinical evidence for the use of DP in the ICUs will be discussed in detail.