To assess the changes in lung aeration and respiratory effort generated by two different spontaneous breathing trial (SBT): T-piece (T-T) vs pressure support ventilation (PSV).
Prospective, interventionist and randomized study.
Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Hospital del Mar.
Forty-three ventilated patients for at least 24 h and considered eligible for an SBT were included in the study between October 2017 and March 2020.
30-min SBT with T-piece (T-T group, 20 patients) or 8-cmH2O PSV and 5-cmH2O positive end expiratory pressure (PSV group, 23 patients).
Demographics, clinical data, physiological variables, lung aeration evaluated with electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and lung ultrasound (LUS), and respiratory effort using diaphragmatic ultrasonography (DU) were collected at different timepoints: basal (BSL), end of SBT (EoSBT) and one hour after extubation (OTE).
There were a loss of aeration measured with EIT and LUS in the different study timepoints, without statistical differences from BSL to OTE, between T-T and PSV [LUS: 3 (1, 5.5) AU vs 2 (1, 3) AU; p = 0.088; EELI: −2516.41 (−5871.88, 1090.46) AU vs −1992.4 (−3458.76, −5.07) AU; p = 0.918]. Percentage of variation between BSL and OTE, was greater when LUS was used compared to EIT (68.1% vs 4.9%, p ≤ 0.001). Diaphragmatic excursion trend to decrease coinciding with a loss of aeration during extubation.
T-T and PSV as different SBT strategies in ventilated patients do not show differences in aeration loss, nor estimated respiratory effort or tidal volume measured by EIT, LUS and DU.
To assess the feasibility of using end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) as a non-invasive substitute for partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in emergency department (ED) triage and follow-up, and to explore the potential of partial pressure of venous carbon dioxide (PvCO2) as an alternative to PaCO2.
Prospective cross-sectional study.
Tertiary university hospital.
97 patients presenting with acute respiratory distress to the ED.
EtCO2, arterial blood gases, and venous blood gases measured at admission (0 min), 60 min, and 120 min.
CO2 levels.
Among 97 patients (mean age: 70.93 ± 9.6 years; 60.8% male), EtCO2 > 45 mmHg at admission showed strong positive correlations with PaCO2 and PvCO2 (r = 0.844, r = 0.803; p < 0.001, respectively). Significant positive correlation was observed between 60-min EtCO2 and PaCO2 (r = 0.729; p < 0.001). Strong correlation between PaCO2 and PvCO2 at 120 min when EtCO2 > 45 mmHg (r = 0.870; p < 0.001). EtCO2 was higher in hospitalized patients compared to discharged ones.
EtCO2 appears promising as a substitute for PaCO2 in ED patients with acute respiratory distress within the initial two hours of treatment. Venous blood gas sampling offers a less invasive alternative to arterial sampling, facilitating simultaneous blood tests.
To describe the high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) indications in the Spanish pediatric critical care units (PICUs).
Descriptive cross-sectional observational study.
Electronic survey among members of the Spanish Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SECIP). It was sent weekly from April 10, 2023, to May 21, 2023.
All SECIP members.
None.
The questions focused on workplace, years of experience, use or non-use of HFNC, justification and expectations regarding its application, starting point within each center, clinical criteria for indication, existence of clinical guidelines, evaluation during its use, and criteria and mode of withdrawal.
Two hundred and two participants, 176 were from Spain. Of these, 87/176 had over ten years of experience. One hundred sixty two use HFNC and 66/162 have HFNC clinical guidelines. Acute bronchiolitis (138/162) and respiratory assistance after extubation (106/56) are the two main indications. For 62/162 HFNC may reduce therapeutic escalation. Neuromuscular diseases (105/162) and anatomical airway diseases (135/162) are the two main contraindications. The reasons to do not use HFNC were the absence of evidence about it effectiveness (8/14) and its inadequate cost/effectiveness balance (8/14).
A majority of Spanish pediatric intensivists use HFNC. Its application and withdrawal appears to be primarily based on clinical experience. Besides, those who use HFNC are aware of its limitations and the lack of evidence in some cases. It is necessary to develop single-center and multicenter studies to elucidate the effectiveness of this therapy in the context of critically ill children.