Patients Who Decompensate and Trigger Rapid Response Immediately Upon Hospital Admission Have Higher Mortality Than Equivalent Patients Without Rapid Responses.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response teams (RRTs) have impacted the management of decompensating patients, potentially improving mortality. Few studies address the significance of RRT timing relative to hospital admission. We aimed to identify outcomes of adult patients who trigger immediate RRT activation, defined as within 4 hours of admission and compare with RRT later in admission or do not require RRT activation, and identify risk factors that predispose toward immediate RRT activation. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed using an RRT activation database, comprising 201,783 adult inpatients at an urban, academic, tertiary care hospital. This group was subdivided by timing of RRT activation regarding admission: within the first 4 hours (immediate RRT), between 4 and 24 hours (early RRT), and after 24 hours (late RRT). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Individuals triggering an immediate RRT were compared with demographically matched controls. Mortality was adjusted for age, Quick Systemic Organ Failure Assessment score, intensive care unit admission, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Patients with immediate RRT had adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality of 7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6%-8.5%) and death odds ratio of 3.27 (95% CI, 2.5-4.3) compared with those who did not (mortality, 2.9%; 95%CI, 2.8%-2.9%; P < 0.0001). Patients triggering an immediate RRT were more likely to be Black, be older, and have higher Quick Systemic Organ Failure Assessment scores than those who did not trigger RRT activation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patients who require immediate RRT experienced higher 28-day all-cause mortality, potentially because of evolving or unrecognized critical illness. Further exploring this phenomenon may create opportunities for improved patient safety.

Supporting Professionals in Critical Care Medicine: Burnout, Resiliency, and System-Level Change.

Burnout is occurring in epidemic proportions among intensive care unit physicians and other health-care professionals-accelerated by pandemic-driven stress. The impact of burnout is far-reaching, threatening the health of individual workers, the safety and quality of care our patients receive, and eroding the infrastructure of health care in general. Drivers of burnout include excessive quantity of work (nights, weekends, and acuity surges); excessive menial tasks; incivility, poor communication, and challenges to team success; and frequent moral distress and end-of-life issues. This article provides system-based practice and individual strategies to address these drivers and improve the well-being of our team and our patients.

COVID-19: Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned, Lessons for the Future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.

Endotracheal Tube Size Is Associated With Mortality in Patients With Status Asthmaticus.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical importance of the endotracheal tube (ETT) size selection in patients with status asthmaticus who require invasive mechanical ventilation. We set out to explore the clinical outcomes of different ETT internal diameter sizes in subjects mechanically ventilated with status asthmaticus. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of intubated and non-intubated adults admitted for status asthmaticus between 2014-2021. We examined in-hospital mortality across subgroups with different ETT sizes, as well as non-intubated subjects, using logistic and generalized linear mixed-effects models. We adjusted for demographics, Charlson comorbidities, the first Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, intubating personnel and setting, COVID-19, and the first PaCO2 . Finally, we calculated the post-estimation predictions of mortality. RESULTS: We enrolled subjects from 964 status asthmaticus admissions. The average age was 46.9 (SD 14.5) y; 63.5% of the encounters were women and 80.6% were Black. Approximately 72% of subjects (690) were not intubated. Twenty-eight percent (275) required endotracheal intubation, of which 3.3% (32) had a 7.0 mm or smaller ETT (ETT ≤ 7 group), 16.5% (159) a 7.5 mm ETT (ETT ≤ 7.5 group), and 8.6% (83) an 8.0 mm or larger ETT (ETT ≥ 8 group). The adjusted mortality was 26.7% (95% CI 13.2-40.2) for the ETT ≤ 7 group versus 14.3% ([(95% CI 6.9-21.7%], P = .04) for ETT ≤ 7.5 group and 11.0% ([95% CI 4.4-17.5], P = .02) for ETT ≥ 8 group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intubated subjects with status asthmaticus had higher mortality than non-intubated subjects. Intubated subjects had incrementally higher observed mortality with smaller ETT sizes. Physiologic mechanisms can support this dose-response relationship.

Professional Societies' Role in Addressing Member Burnout and Promoting Well-Being.

Rationale: Critical care clinicians have high burnout rates. Previous studies have explored individual and organizational solutions to address burnout, but existing literature has not considered how professional societies can prevent burnout and promote member well-being. Objectives: The Critical Care Society Collaborative convened a task force to document professional society initiatives to address burnout, explore perspectives on the role of societies to address burnout, and develop recommendations that could guide critical care societies' efforts to promote well-being. Methods: We conducted a multiphase evaluation of 17 major U.S. professional societies whose members regularly work in critical care settings. We asked representatives from each society to document their existing well-being initiatives, and we conducted semistructured interviews to explore perspectives on the role of professional societies to address burnout. The task force members then met to discuss phase one and two findings to develop recommendations that could act as a roadmap to guide future society efforts. Results: All society representatives agreed that professional societies have a responsibility to address burnout, and they described various well-being initiatives that could act as examples for future efforts. We developed a roadmap with the following recommendations: 1) Acknowledge the problem of burnout; 2) Commit to supporting member well-being; 3) Create collaborations to promote well-being; 4) Educate and advocate for change; 5) Foster innovation through research; and 6) Support organizational and individual solutions. Conclusions: Our findings highlight a clear role for professional societies to address burnout and promote members' well-being.

Exhaled breath condensate biomarkers in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients.

Pneumonia is a significant risk for critically ill, mechanically ventilated (CIMV) patients. Diagnosis of pneumonia generally requires a combination of clinician-guided diagnoses and clinical scoring systems. Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) can be safely collected non-invasively from CIMV patients. Hundreds of biomarkers in EBC are associated with acute disease states, including pneumonia. We evaluated cytokines in EBC from CIMV patients and hypothesized that these biomarkers would correlate with disease severity in pneumonia, sepsis, and death. EBC IL-2 levels were associated with chest radiograph severity scores (odds ratio = 1.68; 95% confidence interval = 1.09-2.60; P = 0.02). EBC TNF-α levels were also associated with pneumonia (odds ratio = 3.20; 95% confidence interval = 1.19-8.65; P = 0.02). The techniques and results from this study may be useful for all mechanically ventilated patients.

Workforce, Workload, and Burnout in Critical Care Organizations: Survey Results and Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVES: This report provides analyses and perspective of a survey of critical care workforce, workload, and burnout among the intensivists and advanced practice providers of established U.S. and Canadian critical care organizations and provides a research agenda. DESIGN: A 97-item electronic survey questionnaire was distributed to the leaders of 27 qualifying organizations. SETTING: United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders of critical care organizations in the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: None. DATA SYNTHESIS AND MAIN RESULTS: We received 23 responses (85%). The critical care organization survey recorded substantial variability of most organizational aspects that were not restricted by the critical care organization definition or regulatory mandates. The most common physician staffing model was a combination of full-time and part-time intensivists. Approximately 80% of critical care organizations had dedicated advanced practice providers that staffed some or all their ICUs. Full-time intensivists worked a median of 168 days (range 42-192 d) in the ICU (168 shifts = 24 7-d wk). The median shift duration was 12 hours (range, 7-14 hr), and the median number of consecutive shifts allowed was 7 hours (range 7-14 hr). More than half of critical care organizations reported having burnout prevention programs targeted to ICU physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of current approaches suggests that systematic comparative analyses could identify best organizational practices. The research agenda for the study of critical care organizations should include studies that provide insights regarding the effects of the integrative structure of critical care organizations on outcomes at the levels of our patients, our workforce, our work practices, and sustainability.

Antibiotic Stewardship in the Intensive Care Unit. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report in Collaboration with the AACN, CHEST, CDC, and SCCM.

Intensive care units (ICUs) are an appropriate focus of antibiotic stewardship program efforts because a large proportion of any hospital's use of parenteral antibiotics, especially broad-spectrum, occurs in the ICU. Given the importance of antibiotic stewardship for critically ill patients and the importance of critical care practitioners as the front line for antibiotic stewardship, a workshop was convened to specifically address barriers to antibiotic stewardship in the ICU and discuss tactics to overcome these. The working definition of antibiotic stewardship is "the right drug at the right time and the right dose for the right bug for the right duration." A major emphasis was that antibiotic stewardship should be a core competency of critical care clinicians. Fear of pathogens that are not covered by empirical antibiotics is a major driver of excessively broad-spectrum therapy in critically ill patients. Better diagnostics and outcome data can address this fear and expand efforts to narrow or shorten therapy. Greater awareness of the substantial adverse effects of antibiotics should be emphasized and is an important counterargument to broad-spectrum therapy in individual low-risk patients. Optimal antibiotic stewardship should not focus solely on reducing antibiotic use or ensuring compliance with guidelines. Instead, it should enhance care both for individual patients (by improving and individualizing their choice of antibiotic) and for the ICU population as a whole. Opportunities for antibiotic stewardship in common ICU infections, including community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia and sepsis, are discussed. Intensivists can partner with antibiotic stewardship programs to address barriers and improve patient care.

The Critical Nature of Addressing Burnout Prevention: Results From the Critical Care Societies Collaborative's National Summit and Survey on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the results of expert discussions and recommendations from a National Summit and survey on the promoting wellness and preventing and managing burnout in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: Literature review; Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) Statement on Burnout Syndrome in Critical Care Healthcare Professionals: A Call for Action; CCSC's National Summit on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU; and a descriptive survey on strategies for addressing burnout using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) (project-redcap.org). DATA SYNTHESIS: Building on the CCSC call for action to address burnout among critical care professionals, the CCSC sponsored the National Summit on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU with 55 invited experts in various fields including psychology, sociology, integrative medicine, psychiatry, suicide prevention, bereavement support, ethics, palliative care, meditation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, among others. Attendees joined breakout groups, to identify factors influencing burnout in ICU professionals and the value of organizational and individual interventions. As a follow-up to the Summit, a descriptive survey assessing strategies for addressing burnout was sent via email or newsletter blast with responses received from 680 CCSC members, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and others. CONCLUSIONS: The Summit attendees identified the importance of raising awareness among critical care clinicians and key stakeholders, advocating for workplace changes to promote healthy work environments, and promoting research to further explore practical strategies to address, mitigate, and prevent burnout. Critical care clinicians reported that a number of initiatives are being implemented both at their hospitals and at the unit level to build resilience and address burnout prevention. However, other respondents reported that no measures were being used within their organizations, and that colleagues were experiencing burnout. Dissemination and application of resiliency building measures and strategies to address burnout in critical care clinicians are needed.

Choosing Wisely in Critical Care: A National Survey of Critical Care Nurses.

BACKGROUND: To promote the use of appropriate testing, and decrease unnecessary treatments, the ABIM Foundation established the Choosing Wisely campaign in 2012. Initially targeting physicians, the campaign has evolved to encourage all providers to promote high-value care; however, information related to critical care nursing is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess nurses' reports of the use of Choosing Wisely recommendations in critical care settings. METHODS: Responses from nurses were examined as part of a critical care survey of members of 4 societies in order to assess awareness and use of the Choosing Wisely recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 1651 acute and critical care nurses who were members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses and responded to the survey, 632 (38.3%) reported being familiar with the Choosing Wisely campaign. Of these respondents, 200 identified as advanced practice nurses. A total of 620 reported implementing the 5 Critical Care Society Collaborative recommendations, including reducing diagnostic testing (n = 311 [50.2%]), reducing the number of red blood cell transfusions (n = 530 [85.5%]), not using parenteral nutrition in adequately nourished patients (n = 293 [47.3%]), not using deep sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (n = 499 [80.5%]), and offering comfort care for patients at high risk for death (n = 416 [67.1%]). Staff education, specific protocols, electronic medical record alerts, and order sets all raised nurses' awareness of the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Acute and critical care nurses are directly involved with measures to reduce unnecessary testing and treatments. Greater awareness and championing of the Choosing Wisely recommendations by acute and critical care nurses can help to promote high-value care for acute and critically ill patients.

Near-simultaneous intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have reported the adverse effects of strain on patient outcomes. There is a paucity of literature about a type of strain that may be caused by near-simultaneous intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. We hypothesized that when multiple admissions arrive nearly at the same time, the ICU teams are excessively strained, and this leads to unfavorable patient outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted to an academic medical ICU of a tertiary referral center over five consecutive years. Primary outcomes were the all-cause hospital and ICU mortality. RESULTS: We enrolled 13,234 consecutive ICU admissions during the study period. One-fourth of the admissions had an elapsed time since the last admission (ETLA) of < 55 min. Near-simultaneous admissions (NSA) had on average, a higher unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of ICU death of 1.16 (95% CI 1-1.35, P = 0.05), adjusted 1.23 (95% CI 1.04-1.44, P = 0.01), unadjusted hospital death of 1.11 (95% CI 0.99-1.24, P = 0.06), adjusted 1.20 (95% 1.05-1.35, P = 0.004), and a lower adjusted OR of home discharge of 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.99, P = 0.04). NSA was associated with 0.16 (95% CI 0.04-0.29, P = 0.01) added days in the ICU. For each incremental unit increase of the logarithmic transformation of ETLA [log (ETLA in minutes)], the average adjusted hospital mortality OR incrementally decreased by an added average OR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.89‒0.97, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that near-simultaneous ICU admissions (NSA) are frequent and are associated with a dose-dependent effect on mortality, length of stay, and odds of home versus nursing facility discharge.

Supply Chain Delays in Antimicrobial Administration After the Initial Clinician Order and Mortality in Patients With Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: There is mounting evidence that delays in appropriate antimicrobial administration are responsible for preventable deaths in patients with sepsis. Herein, we examine the association between potentially modifiable antimicrobial administration delays, measured by the time from the first order to the first administration (antimicrobial lead time), and death among people who present with new onset of sepsis. DESIGN: Observational cohort and case-control study. SETTING: The emergency department of an academic, tertiary referral center during a 3.5-year period. PATIENTS: Adult patients with new onset of sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 4,429 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department with a new diagnosis of sepsis. We defined 0-1 hour as the gold standard antimicrobial lead time for comparison. Fifty percent of patients had an antimicrobial lead time of more than 1.3 hours. For an antimicrobial lead time of 1-2 hours, the adjusted odds ratio of death at 28 days was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.54; p = 0.007); for an antimicrobial lead time of 2-3 hours was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.85-1.36; p = 0.6); for an antimicrobial lead time of 3-6 hours was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.26-1.95; p < 0.001); for an antimicrobial lead time of 6-12 hours was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.99-1.86; p = 0.06); and for an antimicrobial lead time of more than 12 hours was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.29-2.65; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in the first antimicrobial execution, after the initial clinician assessment and first antimicrobial order, are frequent and detrimental. Biases inherent to the retrospective nature of the study apply. Known biologic mechanisms support these findings, which also demonstrate a dose-response effect. In contrast to the elusive nature of sepsis onset and sepsis onset recognition, antimicrobial lead time is an objective, measurable, and modifiable process.

Choosing Wisely in Critical Care: Results of a National Survey From the Critical Care Societies Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Over-utilization of tests, treatments, and procedures is common for hospitalized patients in ICU settings. American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign tasked professional societies to identify sources of overuse in specialty care practice. The purpose of this study was to assess how critical care clinicians were implementing the Critical Care Societies Collaborative Choosing Wisely recommendations in clinical practice. DESIGN: Descriptive survey methodology with use of Research Electronic Data Capture (https://projectredcap.org/) sent via email newsletter blast or to individual emails of the 150,000 total members of the organizations. SETTING: National survey. SUBJECTS: ICU physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and pharmacist members of four national critical care societies in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A six-question survey assessed what Choosing Wisely recommendations had been implemented in ICU settings and if the impact was assessed. A total of 2,520 responses were received from clinicians: nurses (61%; n = 1538), physicians (25.9%; n = 647), advanced practice providers (10.5%; n = 263), and pharmacists (2.1%; n = 52), reflecting a 1.6% response rate of the total membership of 150,000 clinicians. Overall, 1,273 respondents (50.6%) reported they were familiar with the Choosing Wisely campaign. Respondents reported that Choosing Wisely recommendations had been integrated in a number of ways including being implemented in clinical care (n = 817; 72.9%), through development of a specific clinical protocol or institutional guideline (n = 736; 65.7%), through development of electronic medical record orders (n = 626; 55.8%), or with integration of longitudinal tracking using an electronic dashboard (n = 213; 19.0%). Some respondents identified that a specific quality improvement initiative was developed related to the Choosing Wisely recommendations (n = 468; 41.7%), or that a research initiative had been conducted (n = 156; 13.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide information on the application of the Choosing Wisely recommendations to clinical practice from a small sample of critical care clinicians. However, as only half of the respondents report implementation, additional strategies are needed to promote the Choosing Wisely recommendations to make impactful change to improve care in ICU settings.

Update in Management of Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.

Mortality related to severe-moderate and severe ARDS remains high. We searched the literature to update this topic. We defined severe hypoxemic respiratory failure as Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (ie, severe-moderate and severe ARDS). For these patients, we support setting the ventilator to a tidal volume of 4 to 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW), with plateau pressure (Pplat) ≤ 30 cm H2O, and initial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10 to 12 cm H2O. To promote alveolar recruitment, we propose increasing PEEP in increments of 2 to 3 cm provided that Pplat remains ≤ 30 cm H2O and driving pressure does not increase. A fluid-restricted strategy is recommended, and nonrespiratory causes of hypoxemia should be considered. For patients who remain hypoxemic after PEEP optimization, neuromuscular blockade and prone positioning should be considered. Profound refractory hypoxemia (Pao2/Fio2 < 80 mm Hg) after PEEP titration is an indication to consider extracorporeal life support. This may necessitate early transfer to a center with expertise in these techniques. Inhaled vasodilators and nontraditional ventilator modes may improve oxygenation, but evidence for improved outcomes is weak.

4107 Limited Echocardiogram Examinations Performed By Intensivists: A Surgeon-Driven Multidisciplinary Program.

Limited transthoracic echocardiogram (LTTE) has been introduced as a tool to direct resuscitation. At our institution, a multidisciplinary training program was instituted. Our hypothesis is that in spite all efforts for multidisciplinary training, certification, and credentialing, limited echocardiograms are under billed for. A training program was implemented in August 2010. This was followed by a process of credentialing and adding LTTE to the billing privileges for providers. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained to review all the studies performed from August 2010 to October 2014. About 4107 LTTEs were performed during the study period. Only 685 examinations were billed for (16.6%). The total amount billed for all the studies was $80,819.00. The number of studies billed for and performed in the emergency department (ED) were 342, and 343 studies were billed while performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our institution received payment at a higher rate when the studies were performed in the ICU (71.7%) versus ED (49.4%), P < 0.0001. The total actual reimbursement for the ED was $6487.29 and for the ICU was $8213.95 for a total of $14,701.24. The mean reimbursement amount was $35.59. If all of the studies were billed for and reimbursed at the average payment amount, the institution would have received $146,168.13. A multidisciplinary approach is pivotal for the success of intensivist-driven bedside echocardiogram programs. Education regarding credentialing and billing is a necessary addition to ensure sustainability of such efforts.

Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: Executive Summary of an Official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, confidence in the evidence, certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, resources and costs associated with the intervention, impact on health disparities, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified following full panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and CHEST.

Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: An Official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline: Inspiratory Pressure Augmentation During Spontaneous Breathing Trials, Protocols Minimizing Sedation, and Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately After Extubation.

BACKGROUND: An update of evidence-based guidelines concerning liberation from mechanical ventilation is needed as new evidence has become available. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have collaborated to provide recommendations to clinicians concerning liberation from the ventilator. METHODS: Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarize all available evidence relevant to the guideline panel's questions. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and the results were summarized in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations developed and approved by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Recommendations for three population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions concerning ventilator liberation are presented in this document. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable (benefits) and undesirable (burdens, adverse effects, costs) consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions with respect to the selected questions. Conditional (weak) recommendations were made to use inspiratory pressure augmentation in the initial spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and to use protocols to minimize sedation for patients ventilated for more than 24 h. A strong recommendation was made to use preventive noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for high-risk patients ventilated for more than 24 h immediately after extubation to improve selected outcomes. The recommendations were limited by the quality of the available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline panel provided recommendations for inspiratory pressure augmentation during an initial SBT, protocols minimizing sedation, and preventative NIV, in relation to ventilator liberation.