Skip to main content

Advertisement

You are viewing the new article page. Let us know what you think. Return to old version

Volume 3 Supplement 1

ESICM LIVES 2015

A case series of a pav+ weaning protocol in an acute care environment demonstrating an absence of weaning failure

Introduction

Most patients undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV) in critical care units are liberated from the ventilator within a median of 7 days. Unfortunately, some patients experience difficulty in liberation from MV during their ICU stays and require extended time on MV. It has been estimated that 40% of the patient's duration on the ventilator is spent weaning.[1] Moreover, although patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation represent approximately 6% of all ventilated patients, they consume 37% of intensive care unit resources.[2] Therefore, accelerating the liberation of prolonged weaning patients from MV improves patient care and could yield significant economic benefits.

Rationale

Which weaning strategy is “best” is controversial. Proportional Assist Ventilation (PAV+) has many aspects that are theoretically beneficial as part of a difficult weaning protocol.

Methods

Single center case series of patients undergoing a PAV+ protocolized wean from an 18 bed mixed medical/surgical/ trauma Canadian tertiary care ICU.

Results

Over the 39 month (3.25 year) period 46 patients underwent a slow wean, 40 of whom spent greater than 70% of their time weaning in a PAV+ mode. During weaning from MV there were 4/40 (10%) deaths in the PAV+ group, despite a high admitting APACHE II score. All patients in the PAV+ group who survived were successfully weaned from MV over a median of 13.3 (9.2-20) days.

Conclusions

Although this study was conducted in an acute hospital context that is significantly different from Long Term Acute Care Hospitals, it raises the possibility that a PAV+ weaning protocol could be superior to PSV or t piece weaning strategies. Further studies are needed.

Grant Acknowledgment

Study funded by grant from Covidien.

Table 1 Clinical Parameters of Wean Group vs. Literature.

References

  1. 1.

    Esteban A, et al: Evolution of MV in response to clinical research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008, 177: 170-177. 10.1164/rccm.200706-893OC.

  2. 2.

    Boles JM, et al: Weaning from MV. Eur Respir J. 2007, 29: 1033-1056. 10.1183/09031936.00010206.

  3. 3.

    Rose L, Fraser IM: Patient characteristics and outcomes of a provincial prolonged-ventilation weaning centre: A retrospective cohort study. Can Respir J. 2012, 19: 216-220.

  4. 4.

    Schonhofer B, et al: Survival of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to a specialised weaning centre. Intensive Care Med. 2002, 28: 908-916. 10.1007/s00134-002-1287-5.

  5. 5.

    Jubran A, et al: Effect of pressure support vs unassisted breathing through a tracheostomy collar on weaning duration in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2013, 309: 671-677. 10.1001/jama.2013.159.

  6. 6.

    Pilcher DV, et al: Outcomes, cost and long term survival of patients referred to a regional weaning centre. Thorax. 2005, 60: 187-192. 10.1136/thx.2004.026500.

  7. 7.

    Scheinhorn DJ, et al: Liberation from prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Clin. 2002, 18: 569-595. 10.1016/S0749-0704(02)00016-7.

  8. 8.

    Penuelas OF, et al: Characteristics and outcomes of ventilated patients according to time to liberation from MV. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011, 184: 430-437. 10.1164/rccm.201011-1887OC.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to E Rohrs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Keywords

  • Mechanical Ventilation
  • Acute Care Hospital
  • Critical Care Unit
  • Assist Ventilation
  • Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation