Using a clinical decision support system to reduce excess driving pressure: the ALARM trial.

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMC Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1186/s12916-025-03898-2
Ursula Burger-Klepp, Mathias Maleczek, Robin Ristl, Bettina Kroyer, Marcus Raudner, Claus G Krenn, Roman Ullrich
{"title":"Using a clinical decision support system to reduce excess driving pressure: the ALARM trial.","authors":"Ursula Burger-Klepp, Mathias Maleczek, Robin Ristl, Bettina Kroyer, Marcus Raudner, Claus G Krenn, Roman Ullrich","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-03898-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients at need for ventilation often are at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although lung-protective ventilation strategies, including low driving pressure settings, are well known to improve outcomes, clinical practice often diverges from these strategies. A clinical decision support (CDS) system can improve adherence to current guidelines; moreover, the potential of a CDS to enhance adherence can possibly be further increased by combination with a nudge type intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort trial was conducted in patients at risk of ARDS admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were assigned to control or intervention by their date of admission: First, the control group was included without changing anything in clinical practice. Next, the CDS was activated showing an alert in the patient data management system if driving pressure exceeded recommended values; additionally, data on the performance of the wards were sent to the healthcare professionals as the nudge intervention. The main hypothesis was that this combined intervention would lead to a significant decrease in excess driving pressure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 472 included patients (230 in the control group and 242 in the intervention group) consisted of 33% females. The median age was 64 years; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 8. There was a significant reduction in excess driving pressure in the augmented ventilation modes (0.28 ± 0.67 mbar vs. 0.14 ± 0.45 mbar, p = 0.012) but not the controlled mode (0.37 ± 0.83 mbar vs. 0.32 ± 0.8 mbar, p = 0.53). However, there was no significant difference between groups in mechanical power, the number of ventilator-free days, or the percentage of patients showing progression to ARDS. Although there was no difference in progression to ARDS, 28-day mortality was higher in the intervention group. Notably, the mean overall driving pressure across both groups was low (12.02 mbar ± 2.77).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a population at risk of ARDS, a combined intervention of a clinical decision support system and a nudge intervention was shown to reduce the excessive driving pressure above 15 mbar in augmented but not in controlled modes of ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11776331/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03898-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients at need for ventilation often are at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although lung-protective ventilation strategies, including low driving pressure settings, are well known to improve outcomes, clinical practice often diverges from these strategies. A clinical decision support (CDS) system can improve adherence to current guidelines; moreover, the potential of a CDS to enhance adherence can possibly be further increased by combination with a nudge type intervention.

Methods: A prospective cohort trial was conducted in patients at risk of ARDS admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were assigned to control or intervention by their date of admission: First, the control group was included without changing anything in clinical practice. Next, the CDS was activated showing an alert in the patient data management system if driving pressure exceeded recommended values; additionally, data on the performance of the wards were sent to the healthcare professionals as the nudge intervention. The main hypothesis was that this combined intervention would lead to a significant decrease in excess driving pressure.

Results: The 472 included patients (230 in the control group and 242 in the intervention group) consisted of 33% females. The median age was 64 years; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 8. There was a significant reduction in excess driving pressure in the augmented ventilation modes (0.28 ± 0.67 mbar vs. 0.14 ± 0.45 mbar, p = 0.012) but not the controlled mode (0.37 ± 0.83 mbar vs. 0.32 ± 0.8 mbar, p = 0.53). However, there was no significant difference between groups in mechanical power, the number of ventilator-free days, or the percentage of patients showing progression to ARDS. Although there was no difference in progression to ARDS, 28-day mortality was higher in the intervention group. Notably, the mean overall driving pressure across both groups was low (12.02 mbar ± 2.77).

Conclusions: In a population at risk of ARDS, a combined intervention of a clinical decision support system and a nudge intervention was shown to reduce the excessive driving pressure above 15 mbar in augmented but not in controlled modes of ventilation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用临床决策支持系统来减少过度驾驶压力:ALARM试验。
背景:需要通气的患者往往有发生急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的风险。虽然肺保护性通气策略,包括低驱动压力设置,众所周知可以改善结果,但临床实践经常偏离这些策略。临床决策支持(CDS)系统可以改善对现行指南的遵守;此外,与轻推型干预相结合,CDS增强依从性的潜力可能会进一步增加。方法:对重症监护病房(ICU)有ARDS危险的患者进行前瞻性队列试验。根据患者入院日期将其分为对照组或干预组:首先,在临床实践中不改变任何内容的情况下纳入对照组。接下来,如果驾驶压力超过推荐值,CDS被激活,在患者数据管理系统中显示警报;此外,关于病房表现的数据被发送给医疗保健专业人员作为推动干预。主要的假设是,这种联合干预将导致过度驾驶压力的显著降低。结果:纳入的472例患者(对照组230例,干预组242例)中,女性占33%。中位年龄为64岁;序贯器官衰竭评估评分中位数为8分。在增强通风模式下,过量驾驶压力显著降低(0.28±0.67 mbar vs. 0.14±0.45 mbar, p = 0.012),但在控制模式下没有明显降低(0.37±0.83 mbar vs. 0.32±0.8 mbar, p = 0.53)。然而,两组之间在机械功率、无呼吸机天数或进展为ARDS的患者百分比方面没有显著差异。虽然在ARDS的进展方面没有差异,但干预组的28天死亡率更高。值得注意的是,两组的平均总驾驶压力都很低(12.02毫巴±2.77)。结论:在有ARDS风险的人群中,临床决策支持系统和轻推干预的联合干预被证明可以减少在增强通气模式下超过15 mbar的过度驱动压力,而不是在控制通气模式下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
期刊最新文献
Sunshine duration and episodes of mental disorders and the inverse effect modification by ambient temperature. Redeemed prescription medicines to measure quality of life of patients with long-term conditions: a national cross-sectional study. Development, integration, retention, and career progression of physician associates/assistants in UK NHS hospitals and clinical teams: a multiple-case qualitative study. Epigenome-wide analysis of DNA-methylation signatures following climate-related disasters. Viral shedding dynamics in coxsackievirus A6 hand, foot, and mouth disease: a prospective, individual-level analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1