A multi-faceted strategy to reduce ventilation-associated mortality in brain-injured patients. The BI-VILI project: a nationwide quality improvement project

Karim Asehnoune, Ségolène Mrozek, Pierre François Perrigault, Philippe Seguin, Claire Dahyot-Fizelier, Sigismond Lasocki, Anne Pujol, Mathieu Martin, Russel Chabanne, Laurent Muller, Jean Luc Hanouz, Emmanuelle Hammad, Bertrand Rozec, Thomas Kerforne, Carole Ichai, Raphael Cinotti, Thomas Geeraerts, Djillali Elaroussi, Paolo Pelosi, Samir Jaber, Marie Dalichampt, Fanny Feuillet, Véronique Sebille, Antoine Roquilly, BI-VILI study group, Karim Asehnoune, Ségolène Mrozek, Pierre François Perrigault, Philippe Seguin, Claire Dahyot-Fizelier, Sigismond Lasocki, Anne Pujol, Mathieu Martin, Russel Chabanne, Laurent Muller, Jean Luc Hanouz, Emmanuelle Hammad, Bertrand Rozec, Thomas Kerforne, Carole Ichai, Raphael Cinotti, Thomas Geeraerts, Djillali Elaroussi, Paolo Pelosi, Samir Jaber, Marie Dalichampt, Fanny Feuillet, Véronique Sebille, Antoine Roquilly, BI-VILI study group

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed outcomes in brain-injured patients after implementation of a multi-faceted approach to reduce respiratory complications in intensive care units.

Methods: Prospective nationwide before-after trial. Consecutive adults with acute brain injury requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥24 h in 20 French intensive care units (ICUs) were included. The management of invasive ventilation in brain-injured patients admitted between 1 July 2013 and 31 October 2013 (4 months) was monitored and analysed. After the baseline period (1 November 2013-31 December 2013), ventilator settings and decision to extubate were selected as targets to hasten weaning from invasive ventilation. During the intervention period, low tidal volume (≤7 ml/kg), moderate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP, 6-8 cm H2O) and an early extubation protocol were recommended. The primary endpoint was the number of days free of invasive ventilation at day 90. Comparisons were performed between the two periods and between the compliant and non-compliant groups.

Results: A total of 744 patients from 20 ICUs were included (391 pre-intervention; 353 intervention). No difference in the number of invasive ventilation-free days at day 90 was observed between the two periods [71 (0-80) vs. 67 (0-80) days; P = 0.746]. Compliance with the complete set of recommendations increased from 8 (2%) to 52 (15%) patients after the intervention (P < 0.001). At day 90, the number of invasive ventilation-free days was higher in the 60 (8%) patients whose care complied with recommendations than in the 684 (92%) patients whose care deviated from recommendations [77 (66-82) and 71 (0-80) days, respectively; P = 0.03]. The mortality rate was 10% in the compliant group and 26% in the non-compliant group (P = 0.023). Both multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.41-2.26; P < 0.001] and propensity score-adjusted analysis (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.56-3.26, P < 0.001) revealed that compliance was an independent factor associated with the reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Conclusions: Adherence to recommendations for low tidal volume, moderate PEEP and early extubation seemed to increase the number of ventilator-free days in brain-injured patients, but inconsistent adoption limited their impact. Trail registration number: NCT01885507.

Keywords: Airway extubation; Brain injuries; PEEP; Tidal volume; Ventilator weaning.

References

    1. Crit Care Med. 2007 Aug;35(8):1815-20
    1. Crit Care Med. 2008 Nov;36(11):2986-92
    1. Stroke. 2012 Jun;43(6):1711-37
    1. PLoS Med. 2008 Aug 5;5(8):e165; discussion e165
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Apr 15;189(8):998-1002
    1. Intensive Care Med. 2010 Aug;36(8):1341-7
    1. Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Nov 15;51(10):1123-6
    1. Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):2225-31
    1. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24 Suppl 1:S1-106
    1. JAMA. 2008 May 21;299(19):2294-303
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct 15;188(8):958-66
    1. N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 19;372(8):747-55
    1. Lancet. 2014 Aug 9;384(9942):495-503
    1. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1887-92
    1. Crit Care Med. 2006 Jan;34(1):196-202
    1. JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):345-55
    1. JAMA. 2012 Oct 24;308(16):1651-9
    1. JAMA. 2010 Mar 3;303(9):865-73
    1. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1620-8
    1. Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):789-96
    1. N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 1;369(5):428-37
    1. Anesthesiology. 2017 Jan;126(1):104-114
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001 Mar;163(3 Pt 1):658-64
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Feb 15;171(4):388-416
    1. Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1699-706
    1. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Oct;41(10):1781-90
    1. Intensive Care Med. 2005 Mar;31(3):373-9
    1. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8
    1. JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):788-800
    1. Stat Med. 2014 Mar 30;33(7):1242-58
    1. Neurocrit Care. 2014 Oct;21(2):178-85
    1. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Jul;30(7):1334-9
    1. Crit Care Med. 2005 Mar;33(3):654-60
    1. Crit Care Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1992-2001
    1. World J Crit Care Med. 2015 Aug 04;4(3):163-78
    1. JAMA. 2011 Jun 1;305(21):2175-83
    1. J Trauma. 1993 Feb;34(2):216-22
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 May;161(5):1530-6
    1. Crit Care Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1482-92
    1. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Dec;2(12):1007-15
    1. Chest. 2005 Sep;128(3):1667-73
    1. Am Heart J. 1999 Jan;137(1):79-92
    1. Intensive Care Med. 2002 May;28(5):535-46

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner