Search

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization during critical illness is safe and has beneficial effects on functional outcomes. However, its impact on pulmonary function has not been thoroughly explored. We hypothesized that a sitting position out of bed coupled with exercise could result in an improvement in oxygenation and lung aeration. METHODS: The study was conducted on a cohort of adult subjects within a week of their admission to an ICU. Subjects were transferred to a chair and undertook a 15-min session of exercise, either active or passive. Subjects in the control group were only transferred to a chair. Electrical impedance tomography, a reliable bedside technique monitoring regional lung aeration and the distribution of ventilation, was continuously performed, and blood gases were assessed at baseline and 20 min post-exercise. RESULTS: The cohort included 40 subjects, 17 of whom were mechanically ventilated and 23 spontaneously breathing. The control group for each modality consisted of 5 mechanically ventilated or 5 spontaneously breathing subjects. Mild hypoxemia was present in 45% of the spontaneously breathing cohort, whereas the mechanically ventilated subjects demonstrated moderate (50%) or severe (12%) hypoxemia. Compared with the control group, early mobilization induced a significant increase in lung aeration. In mechanically ventilated subjects, lung aeration increased, especially in the anterior lung regions (mean impedance [95% CI]: T1 (baseline in bed) = 1,265 [691–1,839]; T2 (chair sitting) = 2,003 [1,042–2,963]; T3 (exercise) = 1,619 [810 2,427]; T4 (post exercise in chair) = 2,320 [1,186–3,455]). In spontaneously breathing subjects, lung aeration increased mainly in the posterior lung regions (mean impedance [95% CI]: T1 = 380 [124–637]; T2 = 655 [226–1,084]; T3 = 621 [335–906]; T4 = 600 [340–860]). [Formula: see text] increased, especially in subjects with lower [Formula: see text] at baseline (< 200) (133 ± 31 to 158 ± 48, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: For critically ill subjects, a sitting position and exercise increased lung aeration and were associated with an improvement in [Formula: see text] in the more severely hypoxemic subjects.

The use of nebulized antibiotics for treating ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) increases worldwide. There is a paradox, however, between the large body of experimental evidence supporting the administration of nebulized rather than intravenous aminoglycosides and colistin to treat inoculation pneumonia caused by GNB [1, 2], and the paucity of clinical studies confirming such a benefit in VAP. Based on the recommendations of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) [3, 4], the present article examines this apparent contradiction and suggests some directions for further research and clinical practice.

The use of nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy is rapidly spreading across acute care facilities. This raises the question of optimal delivery of inhaled medication to patients undergoing this noninvasive ventilatory support consisting in delivering heated and humidified high gas flow rates through nasal cannulas. In this article, we review experimental and clinical work evaluating the delivery of inhaled medication within the NHF circuit to target the lung without interrupting the ventilatory support. Using vibrating mesh nebulizers placed immediately upstream or downstream of the humidification chamber, with flow rates of 30-45 L/min in adults and 2-6 L/min in children and infants, about 1%-10% of the drug charged in the nebulizer may be delivered to the lungs. Compared with conventional facemask aerosol interfaces, this amount is significantly lower than amounts delivered to adults (i.e., up to 25% of the nominal dose), but similar to amounts delivered to children and infants, the latter having a predominantly nasal breathing. However, significant clinical effects have been shown in both populations when delivering bronchodilators through NHF. This interface is particularly well tolerated and may be useful to improve aerosol therapy tolerance in the pediatric setting. Thus, among patients undergoing NHF therapy, bronchodilators may be delivered through this route. Whereas other drugs may be delivered this way or if there is a patient-centered benefit to specifically use NHF for aerosol therapy among patients without ongoing ventilatory support, requires further evaluation and technological development.

A breath-synchronized nebulization option that could potentially improve drug delivery during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is currently not available on single-limb circuit bilevel ventilators. The aim of this study was to compare urinary excretion of amikacin following aerosol delivery with a vibrating mesh nebulizer coupled to a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, using conventional continuous (Conti-Neb) and experimental inspiratory synchronized (Inspi-Neb) nebulization modes.A crossover clinical trial involving 6 noninvasive ventilated healthy volunteers (mean age of 32.3 ± 9.5 y) randomly assigned to both vibrating mesh nebulization modes was conducted: Inspi-Neb delivered aerosol during only the whole inspiratory phase, whereas Conti-Neb delivered aerosol continuously. All subjects inhaled amikacin solution (500 mg/4 mL) during NIPPV using a single-limb bilevel ventilator (inspiratory positive airway pressure: 12 cm HThe total daily amount of amikacin excreted in the urine was significantly higher with Inspi-Neb (median: 44.72 mg; interquartile range [IQR]: 40.50-65.13) than with Conti-Neb (median: 40.07 mg; IQR: 31.00-43.73), (p = 0.02). The elimination rate constant of amikacin (indirect measure of the depth of drug penetration into the lungs) was significantly higher with Inspi-Neb (median: 0.137; IQR: 0.113-0.146) than with Conti-Neb (median: 0.116; IQR: 0.105-0.130), (p = 0.02). However, the mean pulmonary drug delivery rate, expressed as the ratio between total daily urinary amount of amikacin and nebulization time, was significantly higher with Conti-Neb (2.03 mg/min) than with Inspi-Neb (1.09 mg/min) (p 0.01).During NIPPV with a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, the use of inspiratory synchronized vibrating mesh nebulization may improve pulmonary drug delivery compared with conventional continuous vibrating mesh nebulization.

In collaborazione con l’intera equipe del servizio di rianimazione, il kinesiterapista partecipa alla valutazione clinica per assicurare la gestione respiratoria e la mobilizzazione precoce del paziente. Il kinesiterapista inizia con la valutazione dei segni di distress respiratorio per identificare la causa di quest’ultimo e orientare il trattamento. Egli tratta l’ingombro bronchiale del paziente utilizzando tecniche di disingombro manuali (modulazione del flusso espiratorio, rieducazione alla tosse) e strumentali (ventilazione con percussioni intrapolmonari, insufflazione/exsufflazione meccanica, aspirazione endotracheale). Inoltre, partecipa alla gestione del paziente ipossiemico e/o ipercapnico attraverso l’introduzione dell’ossigenoterapia e la regolazione appropriata dei parametri ventilatori in ventilazione meccanica tanto invasiva quanto non invasiva. Il comfort respiratorio del paziente e lo svezzamento dalla ventilazione meccanica e dall’ossigeno sono due obiettivi chiave della kinesiterapia respiratoria in rianimazione. Il kinesiterapista inizia precocemente la mobilizzazione del paziente. Egli mira al rinforzo muscolare globale e analitico (per esempio, i muscoli respiratori) per promuovere l’autonomia funzionale e l’autonomia respiratoria del paziente. Per fare cio, sono indispensabili un approccio multidisciplinare, una limitazione della sedazione e una nutrizione ottimale. I benefici muscoloscheletrici, respiratori e psicologici della mobilizzazione precoce del paziente di rianimazione sono noti. Praticate nella maggior parte dei pazienti in respirazione spontanea o intubati e ventilati, le tecniche di mobilizzazione vanno dalla mobilizzazione passiva al letto alla deambulazione del paziente fuori dalla sua stanza.

The current gold-standard treatment for COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure is invasive mechanical ventilation. However, do not intubate orders (DNI), prevent the use of this treatment in some cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate if non-invasive ventilatory supports can provide a good therapeutic alternative to invasive ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and a DNI. Data were collected from four centres in three European countries. Patients with severe COVID-19 infection were included. We emulated a hypothetical target trial in which outcomes were compared in patients with a DNI order treated exclusively by non-invasive respiratory support with patients who could be intubated if necessary. We set up a propensity score and an inverse probability of treatment weighting to remove confounding by indication. Four-hundred patients were included: 270 were eligible for intubation and 130 had a DNI order. The adjusted risk ratio for death among patients eligible for intubation was 0.81 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.42). The median length of stay in acute care for survivors was similar between groups (18 (10–31) vs. (19 (13–23.5); p = 0.76). The use of non-invasive respiratory support is a good compromise for patients with severe COVID-19 and a do not intubate order., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

En colaboracion con el conjunto del equipo del servicio de reanimacion, el kinesiterapeuta participa en la evaluacion clinica para garantizar el tratamiento respiratorio y la movilizacion precoz del paciente. La kinesiterapia se inicia con la evaluacion de los signos de dificultad respiratoria para descubrir su causa y orientar el tratamiento. Trata la congestion bronquial del paciente mediante el uso de tecnicas de descongestion manual (modulacion del flujo espiratorio, rehabilitacion con la tos) e instrumentales (ventilacion con percusiones intrapulmonares, insuflacion/exuflacion mecanica, aspiracion endotraqueal). Ademas, participa en el tratamiento del paciente hipoxemico y/o hipercapnico mediante la instauracion de la oxigenoterapia y el reglaje adecuado de los parametros ventilatorios tanto en ventilacion mecanica invasiva como en la no invasiva. El confort respiratorio del paciente y la retirada de la ventilacion mecanica y de la oxigenoterapia son dos objetivos clave de la kinesiterapia respiratoria en reanimacion. El kinesiterapeuta inicia precozmente la movilizacion del paciente. Se dirige al refuerzo muscular global y analitico (por ejemplo, los musculos respiratorios) para promover la autonomia funcional y la autonomia respiratoria del paciente. Para ello son indispensables un tratamiento multidisciplinario, una limitacion de la sedacion y una nutricion optima. Son conocidos los beneficios musculoesqueleticos, respiratorios y psicologicos de la movilizacion precoz del paciente en reanimacion. Realizada en la mayoria de los pacientes en respiracion espontanea o intubados y ventilados, las tecnicas de movilizacion van desde la movilizacion pasiva en la cama a la deambulacion del paciente fuera de su habitacion.

Background This systematic review aimed to assess inhaled drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients or in animal models. Whole lung and regional deposition and the impact of the ventilator circuit, the artificial airways and the administration technique for aerosol delivery were analyzed. Methods In vivo studies assessing lung deposition during invasive mechanical ventilation were selected based on a systematic search among four databases. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility and the risk of bias. Results Twenty-six clinical and ten experimental studies were included. Between 30% and 43% of nominal drug dose was lost to the circuit in ventilated patients. Whole lung deposition of up to 16% and 38% of nominal dose (proportion of drug charged in the device) were reported with nebulizers and metered-dose inhalers, respectively. A penetration index inferior to 1 observed in scintigraphic studies indicated major proximal deposition. However, substantial concentrations of antibiotics were measured in the epithelial lining fluid (887 (406–12,819) μg/mL of amikacin) of infected patients and in sub-pleural specimens (e.g., 197 μg/g of amikacin) dissected from infected piglets, suggesting a significant distal deposition. The administration technique varied among studies and may explain a degree of the variability of deposition that was observed. Conclusions Lung deposition was lower than 20% of nominal dose delivered with nebulizers and mostly occurred in proximal airways. Further studies are needed to link substantial concentrations of antibiotics in infected pulmonary fluids to pulmonary deposition. The administration technique with nebulizers should be improved in ventilated patients in order to ensure an efficient but safe, feasible and reproducible technique. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1844-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. There was a typographical error in Figure 1: “Nebulization time ≤ 30 min” (first light blue square) should be replaced by “Nebulization time ≤ 90 min”. The authors apologize for the mistake.

Purpose: Unlike in the outpatient setting, delivery of aerosols to critically ill patients may be considered complex, particularly in ventilated patients, and benefits remain to be proven. Many factors influence aerosol delivery and recommendations exist, but little is known about knowledge translation into clinical practice. Methods: Two-week cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of aerosol therapy in 81 intensive and intermediate care units in 22 countries. All aerosols delivered to patients breathing spontaneously, ventilated invasively or noninvasively (NIV) were recorded, and drugs, devices, ventilator settings, circuit set-up, humidification and side effects were noted. Results: A total of 9714 aerosols were administered to 678 of the 2808 admitted patients (24 %, CI95 22–26 %), whereas only 271 patients (10 %) were taking inhaled medication before admission. There were large variations among centers, from 0 to 57 %. Among intubated patients 22 % (n = 262) received aerosols, and 50 % (n = 149) of patients undergoing NIV, predominantly (75 %) inbetween NIV sessions. Bronchodilators (n = 7960) and corticosteroids (n = 1233) were the most frequently delivered drugs (88 % overall), predominantly but not exclusively (49 %) administered to patients with chronic airway disease. An anti-infectious drug was aerosolized 509 times (5 % of all aerosols) for nosocomial infections. Jet-nebulizers were the most frequently used device (56 %), followed by metered dose inhalers (23 %). Only 106 (

High-flow nasal cannula use is developing in ICUs. The aim of this study was to compare aerosol efficiency by using two nebulizers through a high-flow nasal cannula: the most commonly used jet nebulizer (JN) and a more efficient vibrating-mesh nebulizer (VN).Aerosol delivery of diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid labeled with technetium-99m (4 mCi/4 mL) to the lungs by using a VN (Aerogen SoloLung deposition was only 3.6 (2.1-4.4) and 1 (0.7-2)% of the nominal dose with the VN and the JN, respectively (p 0.05). The JN showed higher retained doses than the VN. However, both nebulizers were associated with substantial deposition in the single limb circuit, the humidification chamber, and the nasal cannula [58.2 (51.6-61.6)% of the nominal dose with the VN versus 19.2 (15.8-22.9)% of the nominal dose with the JN, p 0.05] and in the upper respiratory tract [17.6 (13.4-27.9)% of the nominal dose with the VN and 8.6 (6.0-11.0)% of the nominal dose with the JN, p 0.05], especially in the nasal cavity.In the specific conditions of the study, pulmonary drug delivery through the high-flow nasal cannula is about 1%-4% of the initial amount of drugs placed in the nebulizer, despite the higher efficiency of the VN as compared with the JN.

We report a case of Guillain-Barré syndrome complicated by respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) allowed proper patient-ventilator synchronization by pressure support proportional to the electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi). Prolonged ventilation with NAVA seems feasible in patients with neuromuscular impairment, but the weaning process conducted by a continuous monitoring of Edi for pressure support titration needed to be assessed in a Guillain-Barré syndrome patient. Beginning on day 12 after hospital admission, the patient was ventilated with NAVA for 8 d. The NAVA level (pressure support per unit of Edi) was decreased from 1.2 cm H2O/μV to zero over the 8-d period. A simultaneous decrease in the tidal volume/Edi ratio was interpreted as a sign of recovery. A spontaneous breathing trial was successfully performed on day 20, followed by decannulation 4 d later. In conclusion, NAVA should be further investigated in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome, particularly during the weaning period.

Backround: Coupling nebulization with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to be effective in patients with respiratory diseases. However, a breath-synchronized nebulization option that could potentially improve drug delivery by limiting drug loss during exhalation is currently not available on bilevel ventilators. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare aerosol delivery of amikacin with a vibrating mesh nebulizer coupled to a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, using conventional continuous (Conti-Neb) and experimental inspiratory synchronized (Inspi-Neb) nebulization modes.Using an adult lung bench model of NIV, we tested a vibrating mesh device coupled with a bilevel ventilator in both nebulization modes. Inspi-Neb delivered aerosol only during the whole inspiratory phase, whereas Conti-Neb delivered aerosol continuously. The nebulizer was charged with amikacin solution (250 mg/3 mL) and placed at two different positions: between the lung and exhalation port and between the ventilator and exhalation port. Inhaled, expiratory wasted and circuit lost doses were assessed by residual gravimetric method. Particle size distribution of aerosol delivered at the outlet of the ventilator circuit during both nebulization modes was measured by laser diffraction method.Regardless of the nebulizer position, Inspi-Neb produced higher inhaled dose (p 0.01; +6.3% to +16.8% of the nominal dose), lower expiratory wasted dose (p 0.05; -2.7% to -42.6% of the nominal dose), and greater respirable dose (p 0.01; +8.4% to +15.2% of the nominal dose) than Conti-Neb. The highest respirable dose was found with the nebulizer placed between the lung and exhalation port (48.7% ± 0.3% of the nominal dose).During simulated NIV with a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, the use of inspiratory synchronized vibrating mesh nebulization improves respirable dose and reduces drug loss of amikacin compared with continuous vibrating mesh nebulization.

Background Early mobilization in critically ill patients has been shown to prevent bed-rest-associated morbidity. Reported reasons for not mobilizing patients, thereby excluding or delaying such intervention, are diverse and comprise safety considerations for high-risk critically ill patients with multiple organ support systems. This study sought to demonstrate that early mobilization performed within the first 24 h of ICU admission proves to be feasible and well tolerated in the vast majority of critically ill patients. Results General practice data were collected for 171 consecutive admissions to our ICU over a 2-month period according to a local, standardized, early mobilization protocol. The total period covered 731 patient-days, 22 (3 %) of which met our local exclusion criteria for mobilization. Of the remaining 709 patient-days, early mobilization was achieved on 86 % of them, bed-to-chair transfer on 74 %, and at least one physical therapy session on 59 %. Median time interval from ICU admission to the first early mobilization activity was 19 h (IQR = 15–23). In patients on mechanical ventilation (51 %), accounting for 46 % of patient-days, 35 % were administered vasopressors and 11 % continuous renal replacement therapy. Within this group, bed-to-chair transfer was achieved on 68 % of patient-days and at least one early mobilization activity on 80 %. Limiting factors to start early mobilization included restricted staffing capacities, diagnostic or surgical procedures, patients’ refusal, as well as severe hemodynamic instability. Hemodynamic parameters were rarely affected during mobilization, causing interruption in only 0.8 % of all activities, primarily due to reversible hypotension or arrhythmia. In general, all activities were well tolerated, while patients were able to self-regulate their active early mobilization. Patients’ subjective perception of physical therapy was reported to be enjoyable. Conclusions Mobilization within the first 24 h of ICU admission is achievable in the majority of critical ill patients, in spite of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor administration, or renal replacement therapy. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0184-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: A specific inhalation chamber combined to a vibrating-mesh nebulizer (VN-C) has recently demonstrated an increased aerosol delivery to the lungs in an in vitro model as compared to a jet nebulizer (JN). The aim of this study was to compare in vivo the pulmonary aerosol deposition obtained with these nebulizers. Methods: A VN-C (Aerogen Ultra ® , Aerogen Ltd., Galway, Ireland) and a JN connected to a reservoir tube (Opti-Mist Plus Nebulizer ® , ConvaTec, Bridgewater, NJ) were filled with technetium-99m labelled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid ( 99m Tc-DTPA, 2mCi/4mL). Distribution of inhaled 99m Tc-DTPAthrough the airways with both nebulizers was randomly assessed in a cross-over study by planar imaging and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) combined with a low dose CT-scan in 6 healthy male volunteers. The lung volume on SPECT images was divided in concentric shells allowing an evaluation of peripheral deposition as compared to central airways. Results: Lung deposition was 6 times greater when using the VN-C as compared to the JN (34.1 ± 6.0% versus 5.2 ± 1.1% of nominal dose, p 0.05). Conclusions: This in vivo study has demonstrated that a vibrating-mesh nebulizer equipped with its specific inhalation chamber highly increases aerosol delivery to the lungs in healthy male subjects as compared to a jet nebulizer. Further studies in selected patient9s group are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of this increased lung deposition output.

Aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) depends on nebulizer type, placement of the nebulizer and ventilator settings. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of two inspiratory flow patterns on amikacin delivery with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer placed at different positions on an adult lung model of IMV equipped with a proximal flow sensor (PFS).IMV was simulated using a ventilator connected to a lung model through an 8-mm inner-diameter endotracheal tube. The impact of a decelerating and a constant flow pattern on aerosol delivery was evaluated in volume-controlled mode (tidal volume 500 mL, 20 breaths/min, inspiratory time of 1 sec, bias flow of 10 L/min). An amikacin solution (250 mg/3 mL) was nebulized with Aeroneb Solo(®) placed at five positions on the ventilator circuit equipped with a PFS: connected to the endotracheal tube (A), to the Y-piece (B), placed at 15 cm (C) and 45 cm upstream of the Y-piece (D), and placed at 15 cm of the inspiratory outlet of the ventilator (E). The four last positions were also tested without PFS. Deposited doses of amikacin were measured using the gravimetric residual method.Amikacin delivery was significantly reduced with a decelerating inspiratory flow pattern compared to a constant flow (p0.05). With a constant inspiratory flow pattern, connecting the nebulizer to the endotracheal tube enabled similar deposited doses than these obtained when connecting the nebulizer close to the ventilator. The PFS reduced deposited doses only when the nebulizer was connected to the Y-piece with both flow patterns or placed at 15 cm of the Y-piece with a constant inspiratory flow (p0.01).Using similar tidal volume and inspiratory time, a constant flow pattern (30 L/min) delivers a higher amount of amikacin through an endotracheal tube compared to a decelerating inspiratory flow pattern (peak inspiratory flow around 60 L/min). The optimal nebulizer position depends on the inspiratory flow pattern and the presence of a PFS.

Background Volume-controlled ventilation has been suggested to optimize lung deposition during nebulization although promoting spontaneous ventilation is targeted to avoid ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. Comparing topographic aerosol lung deposition during volume-controlled ventilation and spontaneous ventilation in pressure support has never been performed. The aim of this study was to compare lung deposition of a radiolabeled aerosol generated with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation, with two modes: pressure support ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation. Methods Seventeen postoperative neurosurgery patients without pulmonary disease were randomly ventilated in pressure support or volume-controlled ventilation. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid labeled with technetium-99m (2 mCi/3 mL) was administrated using a vibrating-mesh nebulizer (Aerogen Solo®, provided by Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) connected to the endotracheal tube. Pulmonary and extrapulmonary particles deposition was analyzed using planar scintigraphy. Results Lung deposition was 10.5 ± 3.0 and 15.1 ± 5.0 % of the nominal dose during pressure support and volume-controlled ventilation, respectively (p