Use of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation is Associated With a Reduced Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients With Pulmonary Contusion

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02118, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.96). 03/2011; 70(3):E42-7. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d9f612
Source: PubMed


Past studies suggest that airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is associated with reduced sedative requirements and increased recruitment of atelectatic lung, two factors that might reduce the risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We investigated whether APRV might be associated with a decreased risk for VAP in patients with pulmonary contusion.
Retrospective cohort study.
Of 286, 64 (22%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation for >48 hours met criteria for pulmonary contusion and were the basis for this study. Subjects with pulmonary contusion had a significantly higher rate of VAP than other trauma patients, [VAP rate contusion patients: 18.3/1,000, non-contusion patients: 7.7/1,000, incidence rate ratio 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.97), p=0.025]. Univariate analysis showed that APRV (hazard ratio, 0.15 [0.03-0.72; p=0.018]) was associated with a decreased incidence of VAP. Cox proportional hazards regression, using propensity scores for APRV to control for confounding, supported a protective effect of APRV from VAP (hazard ratio, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.58]; p=0.01). Pao2/FiO2 ratios were higher during APRV compared with conventional ventilation (p<0.001). Subjects attained the goal Sedation Agitation Score for an increased percentage of time during APRV (median [interquartile range (IQR)] 72.7% [33-100] of the time) compared with conventional ventilation (47.2% [0-100], p=0.044), however, dose of sedatives was not different between these subjects. APRV was not associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.57 [95% CI, 0.06-5.5]; p=0.63) or ventilator-free days (No APRV 15.4 vs. APRV 13.7 days, p=0.49).
Use of APRV in patients with pulmonary contusion is associated with a reduced risk for VAP.

24 Reads
  • Source
    • "Two recent studies have investigated the properties of these modes to improve outcome in ventilated patients in general [6] or with pulmonary contusion [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Partial ventilatory support modalities are ill defined and different perceptions about these modes might depend on geographic region. Exemplary on two recent publications investigating airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in an adult ICU population, the question is investigated whether research in ventilation modes can be performed with the current definitions. The lack of precise definitions precludes drawing meaningful conclusions from these studies, as it remains unclear how these patients were actually ventilated and whether or how much spontaneous breathing was factitiously preserved. An argument is made to develop a new taxonomy of ventilation modes.
    Critical care (London, England) 01/2011; 15(1):115. DOI:10.1186/cc9419 · 4.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of ventilation that has been around since the 1980s and was originally viewed as a type of continuous positive pressure mode of ventilation. Conceptually, APRV can be thought of as a type of inverse-ratio, pressure-controlled, intermittent mandatory ventilation during which the maintenance of spontaneous breathing and prolonged application of high mean airway pressure contribute to the clinical benefits. The aim of this review article was to familiarize the bedside clinician working in the intensive care unit with the theory and rationale behind this mode of ventilation. The potential advantages and disadvantages of APRV will also be discussed to empower the advance practice clinician and bedside nurse to advocate for their patient diagnosed with the often-high mortality disease of acute respiratory distress syndrome.
    Dimensions of critical care nursing: DCCN 08/2013; 32(5):222-8. DOI:10.1097/DCC.0b013e3182a076ce
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is inverse ratio, pressure controlled, intermittent mandatory ventilation with unrestricted spontaneous breathing. It is based on the principle of open lung approach. It has many purported advantages over conventional ventilation, including alveolar recruitment, improved oxygenation, preservation of spontaneous breathing, improved hemodynamics, and potential lung-protective effects. It has many claimed disadvantages related to risks of volutrauma, increased work of breathing, and increased energy expenditure related to spontaneous breathing. APRV is used mainly as a rescue therapy for the difficult to oxygenate patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). There is confusion regarding this mode of ventilation, due to the different terminology used in the literature. APRV settings include the "P high," "T high," "P low," and "T low". Physicians and respiratory therapists should be aware of the different ways and the rationales for setting these variables on the ventilators. Also, they should be familiar with the differences between APRV, biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP), and other conventional and nonconventional modes of ventilation. There is no solid proof that APRV improves mortality; however, there are ongoing studies that may reveal further information about this mode of ventilation. This paper reviews the different methods proposed for APRV settings, and summarizes the different studies comparing APRV and BIPAP, and the potential benefits and pitfalls for APRV.
    Respiratory care 07/2011; 57(2):282-92. DOI:10.4187/respcare.01238 · 1.84 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications