Publication:
Airway care interventions for invasively ventilated critically ill adults—A Dutch national survey

dc.contributor.authorWillemke Stilmaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSophia M. van der Hoevenen_US
dc.contributor.authorWilma J.M. Scholte Op Reimeren_US
dc.contributor.authorMarcus J. Schultzen_US
dc.contributor.authorLouise Roseen_US
dc.contributor.authorFrederique Paulusen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherKing's College Londonen_US
dc.contributor.otherNuffield Department of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversiteit van Amsterdamen_US
dc.contributor.otherAmsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdamen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:16:30Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:16:30Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-01en_US
dc.description.abstractAirway care interventions may prevent accumulation of airway secretions and promote their evacuation, but evidence is scarce. Interventions include heated humidification, nebulization of mucolytics and/or bronchodilators, manual hyperinflation and use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E). Our aim is to identify current airway care practices for invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. A self–administered web-based survey was sent to a single pre–appointed representative of all ICUs in the Netherlands. Response rate was 85% (72 ICUs). We found substantial heterogeneity in the intensity and combinations of airway care interventions used. Most (81%) ICUs reported using heated humidification as a routine prophylactic intervention. All (100%) responding ICUs used nebulized mucolytics and/or bronchodilators; how-ever, only 43% ICUs reported nebulization as a routine prophylactic intervention. Most (81%) ICUs used manual hyperinflation, although only initiated with a clinical indication like difficult oxygen-ation. Few (22%) ICUs used MI-E for invasively ventilated patients. Use was always based on the indication of insufficient cough strength or as a continuation of home use. In the Netherlands, use of routine prophylactic airway care interventions is common despite evidence of no benefit. There is an urgent need for evidence of the benefit of these interventions to inform evidence-based guide-lines.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Medicine. Vol.10, No.15 (2021)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm10153381en_US
dc.identifier.issn20770383en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85114064803en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77987
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85114064803&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleAirway care interventions for invasively ventilated critically ill adults—A Dutch national surveyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85114064803&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections