University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical Center
Dr. Sheetal Gandotra is a pulmonary physician who began her work at UAB in 2018. She received her medical degree from Saba University School of Medicine.
Brian E Driver, MD
Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Driver is board certified in both Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine. He has expertise in caring for all acute illness and injuries, with particular interests in emergency airway management and metabolic disorders.
Matthew E Prekker, MD MPH
Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
Through specialization in both Emergency Medicine and Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Dr. Prekker provides acute care for patients in the Emergency Department and Medical ICU as well as maintaining a practice as a pulmonary consultant and clinic physician. He has special expertise in resuscitation from critical illness, including airway management, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Stacy Trent, MD
Emergency Physician, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA
Stacy A. Trent, MD, MPH is an emergency physician and Associate Director of Research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Denver Health Medical Center. Dr. Trent’s is a federally-funded researcher whose work focuses on examining and mitigating variation in evidence-based care for airway management, sepsis, and acute coronary syndrome. Dr. Trent is a member of the executive committee for the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group, is member of the NHLBI PETAL network serving as a site investigator for the CLOVERS study and is also a member of the NIH SIREN network.
Twitter: @drstrent
Director of the Coordinating Center: Jonathan D. Casey, MD, MSc – Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Jonathan D. Casey MD, MSc is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine at Vanderbilt University and a critical care physician in the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Casey’s work focuses on embedding pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials of standard-of-care interventions into routine care in the emergency department and intensive care unit. His work aims to answer long-standing questions in airway management, post-extubation respiratory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and COVID-19. These efforts have resulted in multiple practice-changing trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Casey serves as Chair of the Coordinating Center for the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group and as a member of the NHLBI-funded PETAL Network and the CDC-funded IVY network.
Twitter: @JonathanCaseyMD
Chair of the Steering Committee: Matthew W. Semler, MD, MSc – Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Matthew W. Semler MD, MSc is an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Biomedical Informatics in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Semler is a critical care physician and Associate Director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Semler’s federally-funded research identifies non-patient-centered variation in current clinical practice, embeds pragmatic randomized trials into clinical care to understand which treatments produce the best outcomes for which patients, and implements the results into practice. Randomized trials he has helped lead, including six published in the New England Journal of Medicine or JAMA, have challenged longstanding dogma around common practices in fluid management, airway management, and respiratory support. Dr. Semler serves as Chair of the Steering Committee for the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group, co-director of the Inpatient Division of the Learning Healthcare System at Vanderbilt University, and a member of the protocol committee for trials within the NHLBI PETAL Network.
Journal: Journal of Neurotrauma
PMID: 35443809
Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35549663
For patients on a breathing machine, doctors may secure the breathing tube in place using either adhesive tape or an endotracheal tube fastener. The ETTS Trial compared the securement technique of adhesive tape versus an endotracheal tube fastener for patients in the medical intensive care unit expected to require a breathing machine for more than 24 hours. Safety and efficacy of the two techniques were compared by evaluating the presence of lip ulcers, the tube becoming dislodged from the patient, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or facial skin tears. Results of the study showed that the use of the endotracheal tube fastener reduced the rate of lip ulcers, tube dislodgement, and skin tears compared to the use of adhesive tape. The findings suggest that using an endotracheal tube fastener will reduce the rate of these events, may improve patient safety, and may decrease the cost of care.
Background: The optimal securement method of endotracheal tubes is unknown but should prevent dislodgement while minimizing complications. The use of an endotracheal tube fastener might reduce complications among critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation.
Methods: In this pragmatic, single-center, randomized trial, critically ill adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) and expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than 24 h were randomized to adhesive tape or endotracheal tube fastener at the time of intubation. The primary endpoint was a composite of any of the following: presence of lip ulcer, endotracheal tube dislodgement (defined as moving at least 2 cm), ventilator-associated pneumonia, or facial skin tears anytime between randomization and the earlier of death or 48 h after extubation. Secondary endpoints included duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and in-hospital mortality.
Results: Of 500 patients randomized over a 12-month period, 162 had a duration of mechanical ventilation less than 24 h and 40 had missing outcome data, leaving 153 evaluable patients randomized to tube fastener and 145 evaluable patients randomized to adhesive tape. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint occurred 13 times in 12 (7.8%) patients in the tube fastener group and 30 times in 25 (17.2%) patients in the adhesive tape group (p = 0.014) for an overall incidence of 22.0 versus 52.6 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively (p = 0.020). Lip ulcers occurred in 4 (2.6%) versus 11 (7.3%) patients, or an incidence rate of 6.5 versus 19.5 per 1000 patient ventilator days (p = 0.053) in the fastener and tape groups, respectively. The endotracheal tube was dislodged 7 times in 6 (3.9%) patients in the tube fastener group and 16 times in 15 (10.3%) patients in the tape group (p = 0.03), reflecting incidences of 11.9 and 28.1 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively. Facial skin tears were similar between the groups. Mechanical ventilation duration and ICU and hospital mortality did not differ.
Conclusion: The use of the endotracheal tube fastener to secure the endotracheal tubes reduces the rate of a composite outcome that included lip ulcers, facial skin tears, or endotracheal tube dislodgement compared to adhesive tape.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03760510. Retrospectively registered on November 30, 2018.
Keywords: Critical care; Endotracheal tube; Endotracheal tube dislodgement; Facial skin tear; Intensive care units; Lip ulcer; Mechanical ventilation; Tube fastener.
Manuscript Title: “The effect of adhesive tape versus endotracheal tube fastener in critically ill adults: the endotracheal tube securement (ETTS) randomized controlled trial.”
Journal: Critical Care
PMID: 31064406
Patients in the intensive care unit who require treatment with a breathing machine may develop serious problems with blood pressure or heart rhythm while the breathing tube is being placed. To learn whether problems with blood pressure or heart rhythms could be prevented by giving patients fluid through an IV, we led a research study called PREPARE. The PREPARE trial included 337 patients from 8 intensive care units and one emergency department. The trial found that giving fluid through an IV did not prevent seriously low blood pressure, but that the fluid might have been helpful for some patients receiving oxygen through a mask before the procedure (called “non-invasive ventilation”). These results suggested that IV fluid might prevent low blood pressure among patients on non-invasive ventilation prior to placement of a breathing tube And were the basis for the PREPAREII trial (described above).
Background: Tracheal intubation is common in the care of critically ill adults and is frequently complicated by hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death. We aimed to evaluate administration of an intravenous fluid bolus to prevent cardiovascular collapse during intubation of critically ill adults.
Methods: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, unblinded, randomised trial in nine sites (eight ICUs and one emergency department) around the USA. Critically ill adults (≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation were randomly assigned (1:1, block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, stratified by study site) to either an intravenous infusion of 500 mL of crystalloid solution or no fluid bolus. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was cardiovascular collapse, defined as a new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg; new or increased vasopressor receipt between induction and 2 min after tracheal intubation; or cardiac arrest or death within 1 h of tracheal intubation. Adverse events were assessed in the as-treated population. This trial, which is now complete, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03026777.
Findings: Patients were enrolled from Feb 6, 2017, to Jan 9, 2018, when the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial on the basis of futility. By trial termination, 337 (63%) of 537 screened adults had been randomly assigned. Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 33 (20%) of 168 patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 31 (18%) of 169 patients in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -7·1% to 9·7%]; p=0·76). The individual components of the cardiovascular collapse composite outcome did not differ between groups (new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg 11 [7%] in the bolus group vs ten [6%] in the no-bolus group, new or increased vasopressor 32 [19%] vs 31 [18%], cardiac arrest within 1 h seven [4%] vs two [1%], death within 1 h of intubation two [1%] vs one [1%]). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different in the fluid bolus group (48 [29%]) compared with no fluid bolus (59 [35%]).
Interpretation: Administration of an intravenous fluid bolus did not decrease the overall incidence of cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults compared with no fluid bolus in this trial.
Funding: US National Institutes of Health.
Manuscript Title: “Effect of a fluid bolus on cardiovascular collapse among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation (PrePARE): a randomised controlled trial.”
Journal: Lancet Respiratory Medicine
PMID: 31585796
Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35579619
When a patient needs a breathing machine, a breathing tube is placed through the mouth and into the windpipe. Difficulty placing the breathing tube may cause serious problems with low oxygen levels, low blood pressure, or injury to the windpipe or lungs. To place the breathing tube, doctors use a tool called a “scope” to see past the tongue for placement of the breathing tube in the windpipe. Two types of “scope” are commonly used. One is called a “video laryngoscope” and another is called a “direct laryngoscope”. The DEVICE trial compared use of a video laryngoscope with use of a direct laryngoscope in 1,417 patients in 7 emergency departments and 10 intensive care units across the United States. The study showed that use of a video laryngoscope increased the probability of successful breathing tube placement on the first attempt.
For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in up to 20% of cases and is associated with severe hypoxemia and cardiac arrest. Before the DEVICE trial it remained unknown whether use of a video laryngoscope or use of a direct laryngoscopes was better for patients.’
To compare the effect of use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on successful intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in the acute care setting. Design, setting, and participants: The DirEct Versus Video LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial was a multi-center, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomized clinical trial among 1,417 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation in 7 emergency departments and 10 ICUs in 11 medical centers across the United States.
Patients were randomly assigned to the video laryngoscope group (n =705) or the direct laryngoscope group (n = 712).
The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe complications.
Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis, successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct- laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference,
0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups.
Conclusions and relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05239195
Manuscript Title: Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of
Critically Ill Adults.
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine
PMID: 37326325
This study is called “Direct Versus Video Laryngoscope (DEVICE)” and is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. Our goal is to learn whether a “scope” with a video screen or a “scope” without a video screen is better for placing a breathing tube and preventing problems with oxygen levels and blood pressure. Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Jonathan Casey. He will be glad to answer any study-related questions. Dr. Casey’s phone number is (615) 208-6139. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or complaints about the research, you may also contact the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program at (615)- 322-2918.
Vanderbilt; Denver Health; Ochsner; University of Washington; Duke University; University of Alabama, Birmingham; Baylor, Scott &White; University of Colorado, Denver; Hennepin County Medical Center; Wake Forest; Brooke Army Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess,
On November 17th 2022, the investigators were notified by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board that the DEVICE trial had met the prespecified stopping criteria at the time of the single interim analysis. Enrollment in the trial was stopped and investigators and clinicians at participating sites were notified.
Each year millions of seriously ill adults need life-saving treatment with a breathing machine. To safely place someone on a breathing machine (a procedure known as “intubation”), doctors give a drug to make the patient sleepy (known as a “sedative”).
The two “sedative” drugs given most often to seriously ill patients receiving a breathing tube in the United States are ketamine and etomidate. Both drugs are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Both are considered safe and effective. Both are given by doctors all the time. But it is not known which drug is best.
Intubation means inserting a tube into a person’s windpipe so they can breathe with the help of a
machine called a ventilator. It’s done when patients are too sick to breathe well on their own — for example, during sepsis, pneumonia, heart failure, or after cardiac arrest.
Because it’s uncomfortable, patients are given a sedative to make them unconscious and prevent pain
while the breathing tube is being placed.
What Is Ketamine?
Ketamine is a drug that caus es a patient to feel very drowsy, blocking pain and making patients unaware of what’s happening. It’s sometimes used in emergency rooms because it can help keep blood pressure stable and doesn’t affect hormone production.
What Is Etomidate?
Etomidate is a drug used to make people unconscious before procedures like intubation. It usually doesn’t lower blood pressure much, which is good for sick patients. However, it can temporarily reduce the body’s ability to make cortisol, a hormone that helps the body handle stress — raising concerns it might increase the risk of death.
Does using ketamine instead of etomidate for intubation in critically ill adults lower the chance of
dying in the hospital?
Researchers compared the two drugs in more than 2,300 critically ill adults who needed emergency intubation in emergency departments (EDs) or intensive care units (ICUs).
Half of the patients received ketamine and half received etomidate. Researchers follow patients for 28 days to see who survived and who had complications.
This was a randomized clinical trial, meaning patients were randomly assigned to get one of the two drugs, ensuring fair comparison. Doctors recorded patients’ blood pressure, heart rhythm, and need for medicines to support blood pressure during and right after intubation
At 14 emergency departments and intensive care units in six major U.S. hospitals, including Denver Health, Hennepin Healthcare, University of Alabama at Birmingham, University of Colorado Hospital, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Wake Forest Atrium Health.
2,365 critically ill adults (average age 60)
Each patient was followed for 28 days after intubation, and the full study ran for about 3 years.
The study medicines did not affect whether patients survived or died from their critical illness. Ketamine caused patients to have lower blood pressuring during intubation.
Deaths by 28 days:
Heart and blood pressure problems during intubation :
Baseline Characteristics of the Patients at the time of intubation
| Characteristic | Ketamine (N=1,176 Patients) | Etomidate (N=1,189 Patients) |
| Age, years – median | 60 | 60 |
Percentage of patients in the study
| Female sex – % | 42.3% | 41.4% |
Race/ethnic group – %
| Non-Hispanic White | 58.3% | 59.4% |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 25.5% | 24.1% |
| Hispanic | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Other | 5.1% | 5.4% |
The RSI Study is a Patient-Powered Study. Guidance from patients helped to improve the patient-centeredness of the study outcomes, accessibility of study documents and the dissemination of study findings to a wider audience. Patient Partners with lived experience serve on the Study Steering Committee in a leadership capacity.
PCCRG is a network of doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, researchers, and patient partners
across the United States dedicated to improving outcomes for critically ill patients.
PCCRG performed randomized trials to compare treatments that patients are receiving in clinical
care and understand which treatments produce the best patient outcomes.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05277896
Contact: Dr. Jonathan D. Casey, Vanderbilt University Medical Center ( jonathan.d.casey@vumc.org )
Funding: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Co-founder of the ARDS Foundation, has served as President and CEO for over two decades. An attorney by profession, Ms. Rubin experienced a life-altering diagnosis in her early 30’s that resulted in a lengthy ICU stay and long road to recovery. Today, she is a well- known advocate for patients and their families serving in a variety of roles to help educate medical professionals and to improve and inform research. Ms. Rubin stresses, “Including the patient and family perspective is critical in medical research to ensure studies are designed from beginning to end with the patient in mind and with objectives focused on concerns, issues and endpoints of importance not only to advance medical research but also to include priorities of patients.” She has served in an advisory capacity for numerous organizations including the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American Thoracic Society. She was also the lead investigator for a PCORI Pipeline to Proposal Award. Ms. Rubin is a Patient Stakeholder for the RSI Trial.
was an active business owner but in 2015 his life was changed when he learned that a virus was attacking his heart. Five months later he joined the growing community of transplant recipients and has embraced this opportunity to inspire and educate others in his community. In addition to serving on the Board of Directors for HonorBridge, he is an active advocate and leadership coach. Mr. Transou uses his experience to help research teams effectively connect with patients and their families. Mr. Transou is the Patient Stakeholder for Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist.
is a COVID intubation and liver transplant survivor and has personalexperience with post ICU syndrome and PTSD. As a retired social worker, Ms. Gouldunderstands the importance of patients’ physical and mental health and has used herexperience to platform the needs of patients and families. She shared, “I strongly believethat medical research saves lives and that patient representation in that process isessential.” Ms. Gould has spoken with the media about her hospitalization with COVID to raise awareness. She currently serves as the Patient Investigator for the University of Colorado Anschutz and the University of Colorado Denver.
brings a wealth of knowledge to the RSI team as someone who has experience in advising the research enterprise at large, clinical trials in particular, and as a critical care survivor and former paramedic. Professionally, he works in nonprofit public health spaces developing and managing programs and community engaged research projects that address the needs of our most vulnerable while building their agency to take their place within research to change and improve it. His experiences provide insight into patient communication and troubleshooting for trial implementation. Mr. Luther is the Patient Stakeholder for Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
is a young adult cancer survivor who is an active advocate in the community. She is passionate about health inequities and supports research that is working to improve outcomes for all patients. Her background in systems and technology is an asset to the RSI Trial. “I believe clinical trial research is important because for me personally, as a two-time cancer survivor with a rare gene, research has allowed me to be on the receiving end of innovative care. I am grateful for that access as not everyone has that same opportunity. Research helps to make it more accessible and to continue the work toward health equity.” Ms. McIntosh is the Patient Stakeholder for the University of Alabama, Birmingham.
has served as an advocate in the American Indian community for over 19 years. She has spent her career building strong connections between the community, tribal government entities, hospital, and patients and their families. In addition to working with patients and researchers, she has extensive expertise in working with individuals and communities suffering from PTSD and has worked closely with numerous community organizations including the Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition. Ms. Strom’s broad experience with underrepresented communities and specific expertise advocating for them is an incredible asset to the RSI team. Ms. Strom serves as the Patient Stakeholder for the University of Minnesota Hennepin.
We want feedback from the community about research like this. Please share your opinions at: https://redcap.link/rsitrial
If you do not want to participate in this research study should you become severely ill and need treatment with a breathing machine, contact us at Jonathan.D.Casey@vumc.org or 615-208-6139. We will send you a bracelet you can wear that will inform your medical team of your decision even if you are unconscious.
This work is supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project Program Award (BPS-2022C3-30021)
When patients need a breathing machine, a breathing tube is placed through the mouth and into the windpipe. During placement of the breathing tube, patients may experience serious problems with low oxygen levels. Doctors give oxygen through a mask before the procedure to prevent low oxygen levels. Two types of oxygen mask are commonly used, non-invasive ventilation and facemask oxygen. Both provide oxygen. Non-invasive ventilation also provides positive pressure to open the lungs and provide breaths when a patient’s breathing slows or stops. Both types of masks are FDA approved and both are frequently used in emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). The PREOXI study focused on determining if one type of mask is better than the other.
Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, hypoxemia increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Before the PREOXI Trial, the effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation was uncertain.
To determine the effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation among critically ill adults. Design, setting, and participants: the PRagmatic trial Examining OXygenation prior to Intubation (PREOXI) was a multi-center, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomized clinical trial among 1,301 patients undergoing tracheal intubation in 24 emergency departments and intensive care units across the United States.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive preoxygenation with either noninvasive ventilation (n=645) or an oxygen mask (n=656). Main outcomes and measures: the primary outcome was hypoxemia during intubation, defined by an oxygen saturation of less than 85% during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. The secondary outcome was the lowest oxygen saturation during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation.
Among the 1,301 patients enrolled, hypoxemia occurred in 57 patients (9.1%) in the noninvasive ventilation group and in 118 (18.5%) in the oxygen- mask group (difference, -9.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], – 13.2 to -5.6; P<0.001). Cardiac arrest occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 7 patients (1.1%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1_> Aspiration occurred in 6 patients (0.9%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 9 patients (1.4%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.7).
| Ventilator Model | Manufacturer | NIV Capability | Required Software Version | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Puritan Bennett 980 | Medtronic | Yes | IE SyncTM Software Version 2.8 and Above | |
| Servo-I | Getinge Maquet | Yes | Base Software (v3.0 or higher) | |
| Servo-U | Getinge Maquet | Yes | Base Software (v2.0 or higher) | |
| Hamilton G5 | Hamilton Medical | Yes | Base Software (v2.0 or higher) | |
| Carescape R860 | General Electric (GE) | Yes | Base Software (v10 or higher) | |
| Infinity | C500 Dräger | Yes | SW 2.n | |
| Evita | XL Dräger | Yes | Software Version 4.n or higher, latest Version 6.0 | |
| Puritan Bennett 840 (PB840) | Medtronic | Yes | Software Version 7.3 or higher |
| Ventilator Model Puritan Bennett 980 |
|---|
| Manufacturer Medtronic |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software IE SyncTM Software Version 2.8 and Above |
| Ventilator Model Servo-I |
|---|
| Manufacturer Getinge Maquet |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Base Software (v3.0 or higher) |
| Ventilator Model Servo-U |
|---|
| Manufacturer Getinge Maquet |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Base Software (v2.0 or higher) |
| Ventilator Model Hamilton G5 |
|---|
| Manufacturer Hamilton Medical |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Base Software (v2.0 or higher) |
| Ventilator Model Carescape R860 |
|---|
| Manufacturer General Electric (GE) |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Base Software (v10 or higher) |
| Ventilator Model Infinity |
|---|
| Manufacturer C500 Dräger |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Software Version 2.n |
| Ventilator Model Evita |
|---|
| Manufacturer XL Dräger |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Software Version 4.n or higher, latest Version 6.0 |
| Ventilator Model Puritan Bennett 840 (PB840) |
|---|
| Manufacturer Medtronic |
| NIV Compatibilty Yes |
| Required Software Software Version 7.3 or higher |
Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation resulted in a lower incidence of hypoxemia during intubation than preoxygenation with an oxygen mask.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05267652
Manuscript Title: Noninvasive Ventilation for Preoxygenation during Emergency
Intubation
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine
PMID: 38869091
Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35212255
Journal: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
PMID: 34898310
Journal: JAMA
PMID: 35707974
Journal: JAMA
PMID: 35707974
Journal: Lancet Respiratory Medicine
PMID: 31585796
Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35486860
Journal: JAMA Network Open
PMID: 3550322
Journal: JAMA
PMID: 35438731
Drs Brian Driver and Matt Prekker join Rob Mac Sweeney to address some of the questions and comments that arose following the presentation and publication of the BOUGIE trial, comparing the use of a stylet with that of a bougie in emergency intubation.
Journal: NEJM
PMID: 34879143