Titration and characteristics of pressure-support ventilation use in Argentina: an online cross-sectional survey study - Critical Care Science (CCS)

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To identify common practices related to the use and titration of pressure-support ventilation (PC-CSV – pressure control-continuous spontaneous ventilation) in patients under mechanical ventilation and to analyze diagnostic criteria for over-assistance and under-assistance. The secondary objective was to compare the responses provided by physician, physiotherapists and nurses related to diagnostic criteria for over-assistance and under-assistance.

Methods:

An online survey was conducted using the Survey Monkey tool. Physicians, nurses and physiotherapists from Argentina with access to PC-CSV in their usual clinical practice were included.

Results:

A total of 509 surveys were collected from October to December 2018. Of these, 74.1% were completed by physiotherapists. A total of 77.6% reported using PC-CSV to initiate the partial ventilatory support phase, and 43.8% of respondents select inspiratory pressure support level based on tidal volume. The main objective for selecting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level was to decrease the work of breathing. High tidal volume was the primary variable for detecting over-assistance, while the use of accessory respiratory muscles was the most commonly chosen for under-assistance. Discrepancies were observed between physicians and physiotherapists in relation to the diagnostic criteria for over-assistance.

Conclusion:

The most commonly used mode to initiate the partial ventilatory support phase was PC-CSV. The most frequently selected variable to guide the titration of inspiratory pressure support level was tidal volume, and the main objective of PEEP was to decrease the work of breathing. Over-assistance was detected primarily by high tidal volume, while under-assistance by accessory respiratory muscles activation. Discrepancies were observed among professions in relation to the diagnostic criteria for over-assistance, but not for under-assistance.