ABSTRACT
Background: To our knowledge, the use and management of pressure support ventilation (PSV) in patients receiving prolonged (≥ 7 days) invasive mechanical ventilation has not previously been described. Objective: To collect and analyse data on the use and management of PSV in critically ill patients receiving prolonged ventilation. Design, setting and participants: We performed a multicentre retrospective observational study in Australia, with a focus on PSV in patients ventilated for ≥ 7 days. Main outcome measures: We obtained detailed data on ventilator management twice daily (8am and 8pm moments) for the first 7 days of ventilation. Results: Among 143 consecutive patients, 90/142 (63.4%) had received PSV by Day 7, and PSV accounted for 40.5% (784/1935) of ventilation moments. The most common pressure support level was 10 cmH2O (352/780) observations [45.1%]) with little variation over time, and 37 of 114 patients (32.4%) had no change in pressure support. Mean tidal volume during PSV was 8.3 (7.0-9.5) mL/kg predicted bodyweight (PBW) compared with 7.5 (7.0-8.3) mL/kg PBW during mandatory ventilation (P < 0.001). For 74.6% (247/331) of moments, despite a tidal volume of more than 8 mL/kg PBW, the pressure support level was not changed. Among 122 patients exposed to PSV, 97 (79.5%) received likely over-assistance according to rapid shallow breathing index criteria. Of 784 PSV moments, 411 (52.4%) were also likely over-assisted according to rapid shallow breathing index criteria, and 269/346 (77.7%) having no subsequent adjustment of pressure support. Conclusions: In patients receiving prolonged ventilation, almost two-thirds received PSV, which accounted for 40.5% of mechanical ventilation time. Half of the PSV-treated patients were exposed to high tidal volume and two-thirds to likely over-assistance. These observations provide evidence that can be used to inform interventional studies of PSV management.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The provision of health care has significant direct environmental effects such as energy and water use and waste production, and indirect effects, including manufacturing and transport of drugs and equipment. Recycling of hospital waste is one strategy to reduce waste disposed of as landfill, preserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and potentially remain fiscally responsible. We began an intensive care unit recycling program, because a significant proportion of ICU waste was known to be recyclable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the weight and proportion of ICU waste recycled, the proportion of incorrect waste disposal (including infectious waste contamination), the opportunity for further recycling and the financial effects of the recycling program. METHODS: We weighed all waste and recyclables from an 11-bed ICU in an Australian metropolitan hospital for 7 non-consecutive days. As part of routine care, ICU waste was separated into general, infectious and recycling streams. Recycling streams were paper and cardboard, three plastics streams (polypropylene, mixed plastics and polyvinylchloride [PVC]) and commingled waste (steel, aluminium and some plastics). ICU waste from the waste and recycling bins was sorted into those five recycling streams, general waste and infectious waste. After sorting, the waste was weighed and examined. Recycling was classified as achieved (actual), potential and total. Potential recycling was defined as being acceptable to hospital protocol and local recycling programs. Direct and indirect financial costs, excluding labour, were examined. RESULTS: During the 7-day period, the total ICU waste was 505 kg: general waste, 222 kg (44%); infectious waste, 138 kg (27%); potentially recyclable waste, 145 kg (28%). Of the potentially recyclable waste, 70 kg (49%) was actually recycled (14% of the total ICU waste). In the infectious waste bins, 82% was truly infectious. There was no infectious contamination of the recycling streams. The PVC waste was 37% contaminated (primarily by other plastics), but there was less than 1% contamination of other recycling streams. The estimated cost of the recycling program was about an additional $1000/year. CONCLUSION: In our 11-bed ICU, we recycled 14% of the total waste produced over 7-days, which was nearly half of the potentially recyclable waste. There was no infectious contamination of recyclables and minimal contamination with other waste streams, except for the PVC plastic. The estimated annual cost of the recycling program was $1000, reflecting the greater cost of disposal of some recyclables (paper and cardboard v most plastic types).
