Epidemiological Characteristics, Ventilator Management, and Clinical Outcome in Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation in Intensive Care Units from 10 Asian Middle-Income Countries (PRoVENT-iMiC): An International, Multicenter, Prospective Study
Authors:
- Luigi PisaniLuigi Pisani
- Anna Geke AlgeraAnna Geke Algera
- Ary Serpa NetoAry Serpa Neto
- Areef AhsanAreef Ahsan
- Kaweesak ChittawatanaratKaweesak Chittawatanarat
- Abul FaizAbul Faiz
- Rashan HaniffaRashan Haniffa
- Seyed MohammadReza HashemianSeyed MohammadReza Hashemian
- Madiha HashmiMadiha Hashmi
- Hisham Ahmed ImadHisham Ahmed Imad
- Kanishka IndraratnaKanishka Indraratna
Open Access
- 11 January 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
- Vol. 104 (3) , 1022-1033
Abstract
Epidemiology, ventilator management, and outcome in patients receiving invasive ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) in middle-income countries are largely unknown. PRactice of VENTilation in Middle-income Countries is an international multicenter 4-week observational study of invasively ventilated adult patients in 54 ICUs from 10 Asian countries conducted in 2017/18. Study outcomes included major ventilator settings (including tidal volume [VT] and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]); the proportion of patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), according to the lung injury prediction score (LIPS), or with ARDS; the incidence of pulmonary complications; and ICU mortality. In 1,315 patients included, median VT was similar in patients with LIPS < 4 and patients with LIPS ≥ 4, but lower in patients with ARDS (7.90 [6.8–8.9], 8.0 [6.8–9.2], and 7.0 [5.8–8.4] mL/kg Predicted body weight; P = 0.0001). Median PEEP was similar in patients with LIPS < 4 and LIPS ≥ 4, but higher in patients with ARDS (five [5–7], five [5–8], and 10 [5–12] cmH2O; P < 0.0001). The proportions of patients with LIPS ≥ 4 or with ARDS were 68% (95% CI: 66–71) and 7% (95% CI: 6–8), respectively. Pulmonary complications increased stepwise from patients with LIPS < 4 to patients with LIPS ≥ 4 and patients with ARDS (19%, 21%, and 38% respectively; P = 0.0002), with a similar trend in ICU mortality (17%, 34%, and 45% respectively; P < 0.0001). The capacity of the LIPS to predict development of ARDS was poor (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] area under the curve [AUC] of 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54–0.70). In Asian middle-income countries, where two-thirds of ventilated patients are at risk for ARDS according to the LIPS and pulmonary complications are frequent, setting of VT is globally in line with current recommendations.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical outcomes of patients requiring ventilatory support in Brazilian intensive care units: a multicenter, prospective, cohort studyCritical Care, 2013
- Association Between Use of Lung-Protective Ventilation With Lower Tidal Volumes and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeJAMA, 2012
- Early Identification of Patients at Risk of Acute Lung Injury: Evaluation of Lung Injury Prediction Score in a Multicenter Cohort StudyAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2011
- The epidemiology of mechanical ventilation use in the United States*Critical Care Medicine, 2010
- Evolution of Mechanical Ventilation in Response to Clinical ResearchAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2008
- Predictors of mortality in mechanically ventilated patientsPostgraduate Medical Journal, 2005
- Ventilator settings as a risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome in mechanically ventilated patientsIntensive Care Medicine, 2005
- Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care unitsIntensive Care Medicine, 2003
- Characteristics and Outcomes in Adult Patients Receiving Mechanical VentilationA 28-Day International StudyJAMA, 2002
- Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000