ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the impact of different vertical positions on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: An open-label randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted between January and July 2020. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 24 hours and < 7 days with hemodynamic, respiratory and neurological stability were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the sitting position followed by passive orthostasis condition or the passive orthostasis followed by the sitting position condition. The primary outcome was lung aeration assessed using the lung ultrasound score (score ranges from 0 [better] to 36 [worse]). Results: A total of 186 subjects were screened; of these subjects, 19 were enrolled (57.8% male; mean age, 73.2 years). All participants were assigned to receive at least one verticalization protocol. Passive orthostasis resulted in mean lung ultrasound scores that did not differ significantly from the sitting position (11.0 versus 13.7; mean difference, -2.7; [95%CI -6.1 to 0.71; p = 0.11). Adverse events occurred in three subjects in the passive orthostasis group and in one in the sitting position group (p = 0.99). Conclusion: This analysis did not find significant differences in lung aeration between the sitting and passive orthostasis groups. A randomized crossover clinical trial assessing the impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation is feasible. Unfortunately, the study was interrupted due to the need to treat COVID-19 patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04176445
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto de diferentes posicionamentos verticais na aeração pulmonar em pacientes em ventilação mecânica invasiva. Métodos: Trata-se de ensaio clínico aberto, randomizado e transversal, realizado entre janeiro e julho de 2020. Adultos em ventilação mecânica invasiva por mais de 24 horas e menos de 7 dias com estabilidade hemodinâmica, respiratória e neurológica foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em uma proporção de 1:1 à postura sentada seguida da condição de ortostatismo passivo ou o ortostatismo passivo seguido de postura sentada. O desfecho primário foi a aeração pulmonar avaliada pelo lung ultrasound score. O escore varia de zero (melhor) a 36 (pior). Resultados: Foram selecionados 186 indivíduos; destes, 19 foram incluídos (57,8% do sexo masculino; média idade de 73,2 anos). Todos os participantes foram selecionados para receber pelo menos um protocolo de verticalização. O ortostatismo passivo resultou em escores médios de aeração pulmonar por ultrassonografia que não diferiram significativamente da postura sentada (11,0 versus 13,7; diferença média, -2,7; IC95% -6,1 a 0,71; p = 0,11). Ocorreram eventos adversos em três indivíduos no grupo ortostatismo passivo e em um no grupo postura sentada (p = 0,99). Conclusão: Esta análise não encontrou diferenças significativas na aeração pulmonar entre os grupos ortostatismo passivo e postura sentada. É factível conduzir um estudo clínico transversal randomizado para avaliar o impacto do posicionamento vertical na aeração pulmonar em pacientes em ventilação mecânica invasiva. Infelizmente, o estudo foi interrompido devido à necessidade de tratar pacientes com COVID-19. Registro ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04176445
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of different vertical positions on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: An open-label randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted between January and July 2020. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 24 hours and < 7 days with hemodynamic, respiratory and neurological stability were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the sitting position followed by passive orthostasis condition or the passive orthostasis followed by the sitting position condition. The primary outcome was lung aeration assessed using the lung ultrasound score (score ranges from 0 [better] to 36 [worse]). RESULTS: A total of 186 subjects were screened; of these subjects, 19 were enrolled (57.8% male; mean age, 73.2 years). All participants were assigned to receive at least one verticalization protocol. Passive orthostasis resulted in mean lung ultrasound scores that did not differ significantly from the sitting position (11.0 versus 13.7; mean difference, -2.7; [95%CI -6.1 to 0.71; p = 0.11). Adverse events occurred in three subjects in the passive orthostasis group and in one in the sitting position group (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: This analysis did not find significant differences in lung aeration between the sitting and passive orthostasis groups. A randomized crossover clinical trial assessing the impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation is feasible. Unfortunately, the study was interrupted due to the need to treat COVID-19 patients.ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04176445.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Orthostatic Intolerance , Adult , Humans , Male , Aged , Female , Dizziness , Respiration, Artificial , Critical Care , Intensive Care UnitsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of an extended visitation model compared with a restricted visitation model on the occurrence of delirium among ICU patients. DESIGN: Prospective single-center before and after study. SETTING: Thirty-one-bed medical-surgical ICU. PATIENTS: All patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with expected length of stay greater than or equal to 24 hours consecutively admitted to the ICU from May 2015 to November 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Change of visitation policy from a restricted visitation model (4.5 hr/d) to an extended visitation model (12 hr/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were enrolled (141 restricted visitation model, 145 extended visitation model). The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of delirium, assessed bid using the confusion assessment method for the ICU. Predefined secondary outcomes included duration of delirium/coma; any ICU-acquired infection; ICU-acquired bloodstream infection, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection; all-cause ICU mortality; and length of ICU stay. The median duration of visits increased from 133 minutes (interquartile range, 97.7-162.0) in restricted visitation model to 245 minutes (interquartile range, 175.0-272.0) in extended visitation model (p < 0.001). Fourteen patients (9.6%) developed delirium in extended visitation model compared with 29 (20.5%) in restricted visitation model (adjusted relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.95). In comparison with restricted visitation model patients, extended visitation model patients had shorter length of delirium/coma (1.5 d [interquartile range, 1.0-3.0] vs 3.0 d [interquartile range, 2.5-5.0]; p = 0.03) and ICU stay (3.0 d [interquartile range, 2.0-4.0] vs 4.0 d [interquartile range, 2.0-6.0]; p = 0.04). The rate of ICU-acquired infections and all-cause ICU mortality did not differ significantly between the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this medical-surgical ICU, an extended visitation model was associated with reduced occurrence of delirium and shorter length of delirium/coma and ICU stay.
