Telemedicine Versus Face-to-Face Evaluations by Respiratory Therapists of Mechanically Ventilated Neonates and Children: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is one of the most important therapeutic interventions in neonatal and pediatric ICUs. Telemedicine has been shown to reliably extend pediatric intensivist expertise to facilities where expertise is limited. If reliable, telemedicine may extend the reach of pediatric respiratory therapists (RTs) to facilities where expertise does not exist or free up existing RT resources for important face-to-face activities in facilities where expertise is limited. The aim of this study was to determine how well respiratory assessments for ventilated neonates and children correlated when performed simultaneously by 2 RTs face-to-face and via telemedicine. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study including 40 assessments by 16 RTs on 11 subjects (5 neonatal ICU; 6 pediatric ICU). Anonymously completed intake forms by 2 different RTs concurrently assessing 14 ventilator-derived and patient-based respiratory variables were used to determine correlations. RESULTS: Forty paired assessments were performed. Median telemedicine assessment time was 8 min. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to determine agreement between continuous data, and the Cohen kappa statistics were used for binary variables. Pressure control, PEEP, breathing frequency, and FIO2 perfectly correlated (r = 1, all P < .001) as did the presence of a CO2 monitor and need for increased ventilatory support (kappa = 1). The Pearson correlation coefficient for VT, minute ventilation, mean airway pressure, and oxygen saturation ranged from 0.84 to 0.97 (all P < .001). kappa = 0.41 (95% CI 0.02-0.80) for patient-triggered breaths, and kappa = 0.57 (95% CI 0.19-0.94) for breathing frequency higher than set frequency. kappa = -0.25 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.04) for need for suctioning. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine technology was acceptable to RTs. Telemedicine evaluations highly correlated with face-to-face for 10 of 14 aspects of standard bedside respiratory assessment. Poor correlation was noted for more complex, patient-generated parameters, highlighting the importance of further investigation incorporating a virtual stethoscope.

Early mobilization in critically ill patients: patients' mobilization level depends on health care provider's profession.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the level of mobilization achieved and the barriers for progressing to the next mobilization level differ between nurses and physical therapists. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Twenty-bed surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of the Massachusetts General Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three critically ill patients. METHODS: Physical therapists and nurses performed 179 mobilization therapies with 63 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Mobilization was defined as the process of enhancing mobility in the SICU, including bed mobility, edge of bed activities, transfers out of bed to a chair, and gait training; the mobilization level was measured on the SICU optimal mobilization scale, a 5-point (0-4) numerical rating scale. RESULTS: Patients' level of mobilization achieved by physical therapists was significantly higher compared with that achieved by nurses (2.3 ± 1.2 mean ± SD versus 1.2 ± 1.2, respectively P < .0001). Different barriers for mobilization were identified by physical therapists and nurses: hemodynamic instability (26% versus 12%, P = .03) and renal replacement therapy (12% versus 1%, P = .03) were barriers rated higher by nurses, whereas neurologic impairment was rated higher by physical therapists providers (18% versus 38%, P = .002). No mobilization-associated adverse events were observed in this study. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that physical therapists mobilize their critically ill patients to higher levels compared with nurses. Nurse and physical therapists identify different barriers for mobilization. Routine involvement of physical therapists in directing mobilization treatment may promote early mobilization of critically ill patients.

Bilevel vs ICU ventilators providing noninvasive ventilation: effect of system leaks: a COPD lung model comparison.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) modes are currently available on bilevel and ICU ventilators. However, little data comparing the performance of the NPPV modes on these ventilators are available. METHODS: In an experimental bench study, the ability of nine ICU ventilators to function in the presence of leaks was compared with a bilevel ventilator using the IngMar ASL5000 lung simulator (IngMar Medical; Pittsburgh, PA) set at a compliance of 60 mL/cm H(2)O, an inspiratory resistance of 10 cm H(2)O/L/s, an expiratory resistance of 20 cm H(2)O/ L/s, and a respiratory rate of 15 breaths/min. All of the ventilators were set at 12 cm H(2)O pressure support and 5 cm H(2)O positive end-expiratory pressure. The data were collected at baseline and at three customized leaks. MAIN RESULTS: At baseline, all of the ventilators were able to deliver adequate tidal volumes, to maintain airway pressure, and to synchronize with the simulator, without missed efforts or auto-triggering. As the leak was increased, all of the ventilators (except the Vision [Respironics; Murrysville, PA] and Servo I [Maquet; Solna, Sweden]) needed adjustment of sensitivity or cycling criteria to maintain adequate ventilation, and some transitioned to backup ventilation. Significant differences in triggering and cycling were observed between the Servo I and the Vision ventilators. CONCLUSIONS: The Vision and Servo I were the only ventilators that required no adjustments as they adapted to increasing leaks. There were differences in performance between these two ventilators, although the clinical significance of these differences is unclear. Clinicians should be aware that in the presence of leaks, most ICU ventilators require adjustments to maintain an adequate tidal volume.

Trigger performance of mid-level ICU mechanical ventilators during assisted ventilation: a bench study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the triggering performance of mid-level ICU mechanical ventilators with a standard ICU mechanical ventilator. DESIGN: Experimental bench study. SETTING: The respiratory care laboratory of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. SUBJECT: A computerized mechanical lung model, the IngMar ASL5000. INTERVENTIONS: Ten mid-level ICU ventilators were compared to an ICU ventilator at two levels of lung model effort, three combinations of respiratory mechanics (normal, COPD and ARDS) and two modes of ventilation, volume and pressure assist/control. A total of 12 conditions were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Performance varied widely among ventilators. Mean inspiratory trigger time was <100 ms for only half of the tested ventilators. The mean inspiratory delay time (time from initiation of the breath to return of airway pressure to baseline) was longer than that for the ICU ventilator for all tested ventilators except one. The pressure drop during triggering (Ptrig) was comparable with that of the ICU ventilator for only two ventilators. Expiratory Settling Time (time for pressure to return to baseline) had the greatest variability among ventilators. CONCLUSIONS: Triggering differences among these mid-level ICU ventilators and with the ICU ventilator were identified. Some of these ventilators had a much poorer triggering response with high inspiratory effort than the ICU ventilator. These ventilators do not perform as well as ICU ventilators in patients with high ventilatory demand.

Performance comparison of 15 transport ventilators.

BACKGROUND: Numerous mechanical ventilators are designed and marketed for use in patient transport. The complexity of these ventilators differs considerably, but very few data exist to compare their operational capabilities. METHODS: Using bench and animal models, we studied 15 currently available transport ventilators with regard to their physical characteristics, gas consumption (duration of an E-size oxygen cylinder), battery life, ease of use, need for compressed gas, ability to deliver set ventilation parameters to a test lung under 3 test conditions, and ability to maintain ventilation and oxygenation in normal and lung-injured sheep. RESULTS: Most of the ventilators tested were relatively simple to operate and had clearly marked controls. Oxygen cylinder duration ranged from 30 min to 77 min. Battery life ranged from 70 min to 8 hours. All except 3 of the ventilators were capable of providing various F(IO2) values. Ten of the ventilators had high-pressure and patient-disconnect alarms. Only 6 of the ventilators were able to deliver all settings as specifically set on the ventilator during the bench evaluation. Only 4 of the ventilators were capable of maintaining ventilation, oxygenation, and hemodynamics in both the normal and the lung-injured sheep. CONCLUSIONS: Only 2 of the ventilators met all the trial targets in all the bench and animal tests. With many of the ventilators, certain of the set ventilation parameters were inaccurate (differed by > 10% from the values from a cardiopulmonary monitor). The physical characteristics and high gas consumption of some of these ventilators may render them less desirable for patient transport.

The impact of closed endotracheal suctioning systems on mechanical ventilator performance.

BACKGROUND: Closed endotracheal suctioning during mechanical ventilation is increasingly used, but its impact on ventilator function has not been fully studied. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of closed suctioning with 11 critical-care ventilators, during assisted ventilation in pressure-support mode, pressure-assist/control mode, volume-assist/control mode, and during continuous positive airway pressure, with 2 suctioning pressures (-120 mm Hg and approximately -200 mm Hg), and with 2 tidal volumes (450 mL and 900 mL). We continuously measured airway pressure, flow at the airway, and pressure distal to the catheter tip, before, during, and after a single 15-second period of continuous suctioning. RESULTS: No ventilator malfunctioned as a result of the closed suctioning. During suctioning, end-expiratory pressure markedly decreased in all modes, and peak flow increased in all modes except volume-assist/control (p < 0.001). Respiratory rate increased during suctioning in pressure- and volume-assist/control (p < 0.001) but not during pressure support or continuous positive airway pressure. Gas delivery was most altered during volume-assist/control with the smaller tidal volume (p < 0.05) and least altered during pressure-assist/control with the larger tidal volume. CONCLUSION: There are large differences between the ventilators evaluated (p < 0.001). Closed suctioning does not cause mechanical ventilator malfunction. Upon removal of the suction catheter, these ventilators resumed their pre-suctioning-procedure gas delivery within 2 breaths, and, during all the tested modes, all the ventilators maintained gas delivery. However, closed suctioning can decrease end-expiratory pressure during suctioning.