Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Sep;70(3):406-418.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.013. Epub 2017 Mar 2.

Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department (LOV-ED): A Quasi-Experimental, Before-After Trial.

Author information

1
Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO; Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: fullerb@wustl.edu.
2
School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
3
Departments of Emergency Medicine and Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
4
Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
5
Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO; Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
6
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
7
School of Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO.
8
Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications.

METHODS:

This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions.

RESULTS:

A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score-matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63).

CONCLUSION:

Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome.

PMID:
28259481
PMCID:
PMC5573637
[Available on 2018-09-01]
DOI:
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.013
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center