Adherence to Lung Protective Ventilation in ARDS: A Mixed Methods Study Using Real-Time Continuously Monitored Ventilation Data

Abstract

Background:

Lung-protective ventilation is a standard intervention for mitigating ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with ARDS. Despite its efficacy, adherence to contemporary evidence–based guidelines remains suboptimal. We aimed to identify factors that affect the adherence of staff to applying lung-protective ventilation guidelines by analyzing real-time, continuously monitored ventilation data over a 5-year longitudinal period.

Methods:

We conducted retrospective cohort and qualitative studies. Subjects with billing code J80 who survived at least 48 h of continuous mandatory ventilation with volume control in critical care settings between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, were eligible. Tidal volume was measured dynamically (1-min resolution) and averaged hourly. The lung-protective ventilation setting studied was ≤6 mL/kg predicted body weight. A subgroup analysis was conducted by considering COVID-19 status. Focus groups of critical-care providers were convened to investigate the possible reasons for the non-utilization of lung-protective ventilation.

Results:

Among 1,055 subjects, 42.4% were on lung-protective ventilation settings at 48 h. Male sex was correlated with lung-protective ventilation (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.08-2.47), whereas age ≥60 y was associated with no lung-protective ventilation use (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.94] in the subjects with non–COVID-19 etiologies. Improved staff adherence was observed in the subjects with COVID-19 early in the pandemic when COVID-19 (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07–2.04), male sex (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.79–3.29), and neuromuscular blocking agent use within 48 h (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.25–2.29) were correlated with staff placing subjects on lung-protective ventilation. However, lung-protective ventilation use occurred less frequently by staff managing subjects with cancer (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35–0.99) and hypertension (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.85). Focus groups supported these findings and highlighted the need for an accurate height measurement on unit admission to determine the appropriate target tidal volume.

Conclusions:

Staff are not yet universally adherent to lung-protective ventilation best practices. Strategies, for example, continuous monitoring, with frequent feedback to clinical teams may help.