TY - JOUR
T1 - Global current practices of ventilatory support management in COVID-19 patients
T2 - An international survey
AU - Alqahtani, Jaber S.
AU - Mendes, Renata G.
AU - Aldhahir, Abdulelah
AU - Rowley, Daniel
AU - AlAhmari, Mohammed D.
AU - Ntoumenopoulos, George
AU - Alghamdi, Saeed M.
AU - Sreedharan, Jithin K.
AU - Aldabayan, Yousef S.
AU - Oyelade, Tope
AU - Alrajeh, Ahmed
AU - Olivieri, Carlo
AU - AlQuaimi, Maher
AU - Sullivan, Jerome
AU - Almeshari, Mohammed A.
AU - Esquinas, Antonio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Alqahtani et al.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Background: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. Methods: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. Results: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respon- dents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12-16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. Conclusion: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.
AB - Background: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. Methods: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. Results: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respon- dents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12-16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. Conclusion: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.
KW - Clinical management
KW - COVID-19
KW - HFNC
KW - Mechanical ventilation
KW - NIV
KW - Proning
KW - Respiratory
KW - Ventilation
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85099078650
U2 - 10.2147/JMDH.S279031
DO - 10.2147/JMDH.S279031
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85099078650
SN - 1178-2390
VL - 13
SP - 1635
EP - 1648
JO - Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
JF - Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
ER -
