AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment

Given the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) W...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Respiratory care 2024-08, Vol.69 (8), p.1042-1054
Hauptverfasser: Goodfellow, Lynda T, Miller, Andrew G, Varekojis, Sarah M, LaVita, Carolyn J, Glogowski, Joel T, Hess, Dean R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1054
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1042
container_title Respiratory care
container_volume 69
creator Goodfellow, Lynda T
Miller, Andrew G
Varekojis, Sarah M
LaVita, Carolyn J
Glogowski, Joel T
Hess, Dean R
description Given the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) We recommend assessment of plateau pressure to ensure lung-protective ventilator settings (strong recommendation, high certainty); (2) We recommend an assessment of tidal volume (V ) to ensure lung-protective ventilation (4-8 mL/kg/predicted body weight) (strong recommendation, high certainty); (3) We recommend documenting V as mL/kg predicted body weight (strong recommendation, high certainty); (4) We recommend an assessment of PEEP and auto-PEEP (strong recommendation, high certainty); (5) We suggest assessing driving pressure to prevent ventilator-induced injury (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (6) We suggest assessing F to ensure normoxemia (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (7) We suggest telemonitoring to supplement direct bedside assessment in settings with limited resources (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (8) We suggest direct bedside assessment rather than telemonitoring when resources are adequate (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (9) We suggest assessing adequate humidification for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (10) We suggest assessing the appropriateness of the humidification device during NIV and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (11) We recommend that the skin surrounding artificial airways and NIV interfaces be assessed (strong recommendation, high certainty); (12) We suggest assessing the dressing used for tracheostomy tubes and NIV interfaces (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (13) We recommend assessing the pressure inside the cuff of artificial airways using a manometer (strong recommendation, high certainty); (14) We recommend that continuous cuff pressure assessment should not be implemented to decrease the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (strong recommendation, high certainty); and (15) We suggest assessing the proper placement and securement of artificial airways (conditional recommendation, very low certainty).
doi_str_mv 10.4187/respcare.12007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084766239</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A803785581</galeid><sourcerecordid>A803785581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c318t-b2e76afe2c46852095f30b4f914a88b84af4f57ba2494a1dabb4d0c1f6180b393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkc1LxDAQxYMo7vpx9SgFQbx0TZq0Tb1IWfwCQRH1GtJ04kbSdk3Sg_-9WV1FQQZmmMfvDQwPoQOCZ4zw8tSBXyrpYEYyjMsNNCUVoyktcraJphhnOCU0YxO04_1rXAuWV9toQivMOGF8is7r-mGezK3pjZI2uXdSBaMguRpNC1GFs-ReBgN9SJ9jM1aGwSW19-B9F4U9tKWl9bC_nrvo6fLicX6d3t5d3czr21RRwkPaZFAWUkOmWMHzDFe5prhhuiJMct5wJjXTednIjFVMklY2DWuxIrogHDe0orvo5Ovu0g1vI_ggOuMVWCt7GEYvKOasLIrsEz36Ql-kBWF6PYT41QoXNce05HnOSaRm_1CxWuiMGnrQJup_DMe_DAuQNiz8YMdght7_e1m5wXsHWiyd6aR7FwSLVWjiOzTxGVo0HK5_G5sO2h_8OyX6AfExkQo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3084766239</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Goodfellow, Lynda T ; Miller, Andrew G ; Varekojis, Sarah M ; LaVita, Carolyn J ; Glogowski, Joel T ; Hess, Dean R</creator><creatorcontrib>Goodfellow, Lynda T ; Miller, Andrew G ; Varekojis, Sarah M ; LaVita, Carolyn J ; Glogowski, Joel T ; Hess, Dean R</creatorcontrib><description>Given the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) We recommend assessment of plateau pressure to ensure lung-protective ventilator settings (strong recommendation, high certainty); (2) We recommend an assessment of tidal volume (V ) to ensure lung-protective ventilation (4-8 mL/kg/predicted body weight) (strong recommendation, high certainty); (3) We recommend documenting V as mL/kg predicted body weight (strong recommendation, high certainty); (4) We recommend an assessment of PEEP and auto-PEEP (strong recommendation, high certainty); (5) We suggest assessing driving pressure to prevent ventilator-induced injury (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (6) We suggest assessing F to ensure normoxemia (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (7) We suggest telemonitoring to supplement direct bedside assessment in settings with limited resources (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (8) We suggest direct bedside assessment rather than telemonitoring when resources are adequate (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (9) We suggest assessing adequate humidification for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (10) We suggest assessing the appropriateness of the humidification device during NIV and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (11) We recommend that the skin surrounding artificial airways and NIV interfaces be assessed (strong recommendation, high certainty); (12) We suggest assessing the dressing used for tracheostomy tubes and NIV interfaces (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (13) We recommend assessing the pressure inside the cuff of artificial airways using a manometer (strong recommendation, high certainty); (14) We recommend that continuous cuff pressure assessment should not be implemented to decrease the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (strong recommendation, high certainty); and (15) We suggest assessing the proper placement and securement of artificial airways (conditional recommendation, very low certainty).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1324</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1943-3654</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-3654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4187/respcare.12007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39048148</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</publisher><subject>Artificial respiration ; Humans ; Positive-Pressure Respiration - instrumentation ; Positive-Pressure Respiration - methods ; Practice ; Practice guidelines (Medicine) ; Respiration, Artificial - methods ; Tidal Volume ; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury - prevention &amp; control ; Ventilators, Mechanical</subject><ispartof>Respiratory care, 2024-08, Vol.69 (8), p.1042-1054</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2024 by Daedalus Enterprises.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39048148$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goodfellow, Lynda T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Andrew G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varekojis, Sarah M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LaVita, Carolyn J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glogowski, Joel T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Dean R</creatorcontrib><title>AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment</title><title>Respiratory care</title><addtitle>Respir Care</addtitle><description>Given the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) We recommend assessment of plateau pressure to ensure lung-protective ventilator settings (strong recommendation, high certainty); (2) We recommend an assessment of tidal volume (V ) to ensure lung-protective ventilation (4-8 mL/kg/predicted body weight) (strong recommendation, high certainty); (3) We recommend documenting V as mL/kg predicted body weight (strong recommendation, high certainty); (4) We recommend an assessment of PEEP and auto-PEEP (strong recommendation, high certainty); (5) We suggest assessing driving pressure to prevent ventilator-induced injury (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (6) We suggest assessing F to ensure normoxemia (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (7) We suggest telemonitoring to supplement direct bedside assessment in settings with limited resources (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (8) We suggest direct bedside assessment rather than telemonitoring when resources are adequate (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (9) We suggest assessing adequate humidification for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (10) We suggest assessing the appropriateness of the humidification device during NIV and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (11) We recommend that the skin surrounding artificial airways and NIV interfaces be assessed (strong recommendation, high certainty); (12) We suggest assessing the dressing used for tracheostomy tubes and NIV interfaces (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (13) We recommend assessing the pressure inside the cuff of artificial airways using a manometer (strong recommendation, high certainty); (14) We recommend that continuous cuff pressure assessment should not be implemented to decrease the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (strong recommendation, high certainty); and (15) We suggest assessing the proper placement and securement of artificial airways (conditional recommendation, very low certainty).</description><subject>Artificial respiration</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Positive-Pressure Respiration - instrumentation</subject><subject>Positive-Pressure Respiration - methods</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Practice guidelines (Medicine)</subject><subject>Respiration, Artificial - methods</subject><subject>Tidal Volume</subject><subject>Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Ventilators, Mechanical</subject><issn>0020-1324</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkc1LxDAQxYMo7vpx9SgFQbx0TZq0Tb1IWfwCQRH1GtJ04kbSdk3Sg_-9WV1FQQZmmMfvDQwPoQOCZ4zw8tSBXyrpYEYyjMsNNCUVoyktcraJphhnOCU0YxO04_1rXAuWV9toQivMOGF8is7r-mGezK3pjZI2uXdSBaMguRpNC1GFs-ReBgN9SJ9jM1aGwSW19-B9F4U9tKWl9bC_nrvo6fLicX6d3t5d3czr21RRwkPaZFAWUkOmWMHzDFe5prhhuiJMct5wJjXTednIjFVMklY2DWuxIrogHDe0orvo5Ovu0g1vI_ggOuMVWCt7GEYvKOasLIrsEz36Ql-kBWF6PYT41QoXNce05HnOSaRm_1CxWuiMGnrQJup_DMe_DAuQNiz8YMdght7_e1m5wXsHWiyd6aR7FwSLVWjiOzTxGVo0HK5_G5sO2h_8OyX6AfExkQo</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Goodfellow, Lynda T</creator><creator>Miller, Andrew G</creator><creator>Varekojis, Sarah M</creator><creator>LaVita, Carolyn J</creator><creator>Glogowski, Joel T</creator><creator>Hess, Dean R</creator><general>Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment</title><author>Goodfellow, Lynda T ; Miller, Andrew G ; Varekojis, Sarah M ; LaVita, Carolyn J ; Glogowski, Joel T ; Hess, Dean R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c318t-b2e76afe2c46852095f30b4f914a88b84af4f57ba2494a1dabb4d0c1f6180b393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Artificial respiration</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Positive-Pressure Respiration - instrumentation</topic><topic>Positive-Pressure Respiration - methods</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Practice guidelines (Medicine)</topic><topic>Respiration, Artificial - methods</topic><topic>Tidal Volume</topic><topic>Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Ventilators, Mechanical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goodfellow, Lynda T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Andrew G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varekojis, Sarah M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LaVita, Carolyn J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glogowski, Joel T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Dean R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Respiratory care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goodfellow, Lynda T</au><au>Miller, Andrew G</au><au>Varekojis, Sarah M</au><au>LaVita, Carolyn J</au><au>Glogowski, Joel T</au><au>Hess, Dean R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment</atitle><jtitle>Respiratory care</jtitle><addtitle>Respir Care</addtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1042</spage><epage>1054</epage><pages>1042-1054</pages><issn>0020-1324</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><eissn>1943-3654</eissn><abstract>Given the important role of patient-ventilator assessments in ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation, a team of respiratory therapists and a librarian used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to make the following recommendations: (1) We recommend assessment of plateau pressure to ensure lung-protective ventilator settings (strong recommendation, high certainty); (2) We recommend an assessment of tidal volume (V ) to ensure lung-protective ventilation (4-8 mL/kg/predicted body weight) (strong recommendation, high certainty); (3) We recommend documenting V as mL/kg predicted body weight (strong recommendation, high certainty); (4) We recommend an assessment of PEEP and auto-PEEP (strong recommendation, high certainty); (5) We suggest assessing driving pressure to prevent ventilator-induced injury (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (6) We suggest assessing F to ensure normoxemia (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (7) We suggest telemonitoring to supplement direct bedside assessment in settings with limited resources (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (8) We suggest direct bedside assessment rather than telemonitoring when resources are adequate (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (9) We suggest assessing adequate humidification for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); (10) We suggest assessing the appropriateness of the humidification device during NIV and invasive mechanical ventilation (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (11) We recommend that the skin surrounding artificial airways and NIV interfaces be assessed (strong recommendation, high certainty); (12) We suggest assessing the dressing used for tracheostomy tubes and NIV interfaces (conditional recommendation, low certainty); (13) We recommend assessing the pressure inside the cuff of artificial airways using a manometer (strong recommendation, high certainty); (14) We recommend that continuous cuff pressure assessment should not be implemented to decrease the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (strong recommendation, high certainty); and (15) We suggest assessing the proper placement and securement of artificial airways (conditional recommendation, very low certainty).</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</pub><pmid>39048148</pmid><doi>10.4187/respcare.12007</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-1324
ispartof Respiratory care, 2024-08, Vol.69 (8), p.1042-1054
issn 0020-1324
1943-3654
1943-3654
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084766239
source MEDLINE; PubMed Central
subjects Artificial respiration
Humans
Positive-Pressure Respiration - instrumentation
Positive-Pressure Respiration - methods
Practice
Practice guidelines (Medicine)
Respiration, Artificial - methods
Tidal Volume
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury - prevention & control
Ventilators, Mechanical
title AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T13%3A01%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=AARC%20Clinical%20Practice%20Guideline:%20Patient-Ventilator%20Assessment&rft.jtitle=Respiratory%20care&rft.au=Goodfellow,%20Lynda%20T&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1042&rft.epage=1054&rft.pages=1042-1054&rft.issn=0020-1324&rft.eissn=1943-3654&rft_id=info:doi/10.4187/respcare.12007&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA803785581%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3084766239&rft_id=info:pmid/39048148&rft_galeid=A803785581&rfr_iscdi=true