Adherence to Lung Protective Ventilation in ARDS: A Mixed Methods Study Using Real-Time Continuously Monitored...

Background: Lung-protective ventilation is a standard intervention for mitigating ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with ARDS. Despite its efficacy, adherence to contemporary evidence-based guidelines remains suboptimal. We aimed to identify factors that affect the adherence of staff to applying lung-protective ventilation guidelines by analyzing real-time, continuously monitored ventilation data over a 5-year longitudinal period. Methods: We conducted retrospective cohort and qualitative studies. Subjects with billing code J80 who survived at least 48 h of continuous mandatory ventilation with volume control in critical care settings between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, were eligible. Tidal volume was measured dynamically (1-min resolution) and averaged hourly. The lung-protective ventilation setting studied was ≤6 mL/kg predicted body weight. A subgroup analysis was conducted by considering COVID-19 status. Focus groups of critical-care providers were convened to investigate the possible reasons for the non-utilization of lung-protective ventilation. Results: Among 1,055 subjects, 42.4% were on lung-protective ventilation settings at 48 h. Male sex was correlated with lung-protective ventilation (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.08-2.47), whereas age ≥60 y was associated with no lung-protective ventilation use (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.94] in the subjects with non-COVID-19 etiologies. Improved staff adherence was observed in the subjects with COVID-19 early in the pandemic when COVID-19 (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07-2.04), male sex (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.79-3.29), and neuromuscular blocking agent use within 48 h (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.25-2.29) were correlated with staff placing subjects on lung-protective ventilation. However, lung-protective ventilation use occurred less frequently by staff managing subjects with cancer (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.99) and hypertension (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85). Focus groups supported these findings and highlighted the need for an accurate height measurement on unit admission to determine the appropriate target tidal volume. Conclusions: Staff are not yet universally adherent to lung-protective ventilation best practices. Strategies, for example, continuous monitoring, with frequent feedback to clinical teams may help.