Decision support system facilitates rapid decreases in pressure support and appropriate inspiratory muscle workloads in adults with respiratory failure
A commercially available decision support system (DSS) provides guidance for setting inspiratory pressure support (PS) to maintain work of breathing (WOB/min), breathing frequency (f), and tidal volume (VT) in proper clinical ranges (VentAssist™). If these values are outside the proper clinical range patients may suffer fatigue, atrophy, hypoventilation, hyperventilation, volutrauma, or VT deficiency. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the increase of the percentage of breaths in the targeted clinical ranges when the DSS guidance for setting the PS was followed.
The study included 43 intubated adults with respiratory failure in an academic medical intensive care unit. Each of the patients had received ventilatory support for >24h with no weaning trials attempted. Clinicians switched the ventilator to PS then proceeded to utilize the guidance recommended by the DSS for setting PS for 21 patients (intervention group); while the clinicians caring for the remaining 23 patients did not have access to the DSS (control group).
The use of a DSS to set PS level increased the percentage of breaths in the targeted clinical range [28% to 48%, p value<0.0001]. An unexpected result was that while following the DSS 18 of the 21 patients were rapidly weaned to minimal ventilator settings within 46±38min; however, when the DSS was not available weaning to minimal ventilator settings lasted 21±12h [p value<0.0001].
The DSS is successful at assisting clinicians on how to set PS specific to a patient's individual demands (VT and f) while accounting for their breathing effort (WOB/min). The DSS appears to promote rapid weaning of PS to minimal ventilator settings when appropriate.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,956,062
of 27,267,055 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Critical Care
#1,736
of 2,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,508
of 332,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Critical Care
#44
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,267,055 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
