There are a variety of ventilator options available to the emergency clinician, and decisions on choosing optimal settings will depend on the clinical circumstances. Understanding the latest literature in ventilator management can improve patient outcomes by ensuring optimal oxygenation and ventilation and reducing the potential for ventilator-induced lung injury. This article reviews the most appropriate ventilator settings for a variety of conditions in intubated adult patients presenting to the emergency department, and gives recommendations on monitoring the ventilated patient and making ventilator adjustments. An update on managing COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is also included.
Your very first patient is wheeled into the resuscitation bay as you are walking through the doors to start your shift. A 30-year-old woman (5’3” tall, 120 kg) is in respiratory failure from an acute asthma exacerbation and requires a crash airway despite your best efforts to avoid endotracheal intubation. After intubation, the respiratory therapist asks for initial ventilator settings. You recall that these patients are at risk for breath-stacking and you start to devise your ventilator strategy...
Halfway into your shift, a 21-year-old man with type 1 diabetes mellitus presents, obtunded, with Kussmaul breathing. You start your standard resuscitation, but the patient requires endotracheal intubation, as he is unresponsive to all stimuli. You consider whether you should use the bag-valve mask during the apneic period during rapid sequence intubation...
At the end of your shift, a 50-year-old man who was seen 2 days ago at an outside hospital for pneumonia now presents in severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The patient is intubated, but is difficult to oxygenate. A chest x-ray demonstrates good endotracheal tube placement, but bilateral diffuse infiltrates. You suspect acute respiratory distress syndrome and start thinking about the strategies you will use if your initial approach is ineffective in oxygenating the patient...
When it becomes necessary to place a patient on a ventilator in the emergency department (ED), there are many options regarding ventilator settings, and understanding the strategies for each clinical scenario can improve patient outcomes.1,2 A pre/post study on a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol found that initiating best ventilator management practice in the ED decreased mortality, duration of ventilation, and hospital length of stay.3
Fundamental to successful airway management is the optimization of oxygenation and perfusion prior to intubation and placement on a ventilator, if possible; failure to do this has been associated with an increased risk of peri-intubation cardiac arrest.4,5 Most cases of intubation-related cardiac arrest occur within 10 minutes of intubation.6
Because patients require mechanical ventilation for a wide variety of conditions, the considerations and initial approach to ventilator management could be substantially different in different scenarios. This issue of Emergency Medicine Practice reviews general approaches to ventilator management, with a focus on specific conditions where a different approach to mechanical ventilation would be advantageous.
A literature search was performed using the PubMed Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) with key words respiratory distress syndrome (432 articles); ventilator-induced lung injury (72 articles); respiration, artificial (2528 articles); and ventilators, mechanical (66 articles) restricted to adults and trials in the past 10 years. Literature on randomized trials specific to the ED is relatively uncommon, as most are longitudinal studies performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Many of the studies included patients who were enrolled in the ED, with the majority of the interventions carried out in the ICU. Nonetheless, there are supportive quasi-experimental (pre/post) and observational data with outcomes that mirror the randomized ICU-conducted trials. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the benefits found in the ICU ventilator trials are applicable to the ED population. Specific trials analyzing most individual components of ventilator management are lacking, except for trials regarding acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), where literature is robust. All major trials on ventilator management were reviewed, as well as expert opinion articles regarding ED ventilator management.
If mechanical ventilation is within the scope of practice of the prehospital provider, the guidelines in this article apply. Most recent data show that hyperoxia in acutely ill medical patients is harmful, and expert recommendations advise following the same oxygenation guidelines in the prehospital setting as in the ED/inpatient setting by generally avoiding hyperoxia. (See the “Oxygen Delivery” section.)
If using bag-valve mask (BVM) ventilation for hypoxia during transport, utilize a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) valve to provide PEEP where it is necessary, as adjusting PEEP on a ventilator. A PEEP valve may be integrated with the BVM or it may be an optional add-on, and it typically allows for the application of 0 to 20 cm H2O of PEEP. PEEP provides pressure to the airways at the end of expiration, which can increase alveolar patency and improve oxygenation, especially in areas of shunting. Shunting refers to areas where alveoli are being perfused but not being ventilated (eg, shunting due to alveolar fluid accumulation in pulmonary edema, alveolar hemorrhage, pneumonia, etc). PEEP can keep these alveoli patent and participating in gas exchange. Following the same recommendations for PEEP as discussed in ventilated patients in the following sections is appropriate.
1. “The patient with ARDS had difficulty oxygenating, so I increased the tidal volume to 12 mL/ kg as my first intervention.”
Increased tidal volumes have been shown to increase mortality in ARDS. Using lung-protective lower tidal volume strategies is preferred, using the FiO2 and PEEP to maintain appropriate oxygenation. If this fails, prone positioning and/or APRV should be considered.
4. “This patient with severe DKA coded 5 minutes after I intubated him. I don’t understand why, since I used normal ventilator settings.”
Patients with severe metabolic acidosis need adequate respiratory compensation by using a high minute ventilation. Patients who receive longer-acting paralytics (such as rocuronium), are initially unable to over-breathe the ventilator since they are still paralyzed. Taking away their respiratory compensation with a lower minute ventilation after intubation can cause a precipitous decline in pH and lead to cardiac arrest.
10. “My patient with asthma was intubated, and the PaCO2 was 70 mm Hg, so I increased the respiratory rate to increase his minute ventilation to ‘blow off’ some CO2.”
Patients with asthma are at high risk for breath-stacking, and the high PaCO2 reflects poor air movement from severe bronchospasm. Increasing the respiratory rate indiscriminately in this case is likely to lead to breath-stacking, which is dangerous. Monitoring the patient for breath-stacking is critical prior to any increases in respiratory rate, and hypercapnia in this situation should be tolerated as long as the pH remains above 7.20 (permissive hypercapnia).
Evidence-based medicine requires a critical appraisal of the literature based upon study methodology and number of subjects. Not all references are equally robust. The findings of a large, prospective, randomized, and blinded trial should carry more weight than a case report.
To help the reader judge the strength of each reference, pertinent information about the study, such as the type of study and the number of patients in the study is included in bold type following the references, where available. In addition, the most informative references cited in this paper, as determined by the author, are highlighted.
Ryan Pedigo, MD
William A. Knight, IV, MD, FACEP, FNCS; Charles Stewart, MD, EMDM, MPH
July 1, 2020
August 1, 2023
4 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™, 4 ACEP Category I Credits, 4 AAFP Prescribed Credits, 4 AOA Category 2-A or 2-B Credits
Date of Original Release: July 1, 2020. Date of most recent review: June 10, 2020. Termination date: July 1, 2023.
Accreditation: EB Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the ACCME.
Credit Designation: EB Medicine designates this enduring material for a maximum of 4 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
ACEP Accreditation: Emergency Medicine Practice is approved by the American College of Emergency Physicians for 48 hours of ACEP Category I credit per annual subscription.
AAFP Accreditation: This Enduring Material activity, Emergency Medicine Practice, has been reviewed and is acceptable for credit by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Term of approval begins 07/01/2020. Term of approval is for one year from this date. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
AOA Accreditation: Emergency Medicine Practice is eligible for 4 Category 2-A or 2-B credit hours per issue by the American Osteopathic Association.
Specialty CME: Not applicable. For more information, please call Customer Service at 1-800-249-5770.
Needs Assessment: The need for this educational activity was determined by a survey of medical staff, including the editorial board of this publication; review of morbidity and mortality data from the CDC, AHA, NCHS, and ACEP; and evaluation of prior activities for emergency physicians.
Target Audience: This enduring material is designed for emergency medicine physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and residents.
Goals: Upon completion of this activity, you should be able to: (1) demonstrate medical decision-making based on the strongest clinical evidence; (2) cost-effectively diagnose and treat the most critical presentations; and (3) describe the most common medicolegal pitfalls for each topic covered.
Discussion of Investigational Information: As part of the journal, faculty may be presenting investigational information about pharmaceutical products that is outside Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling. Information presented as part of this activity is intended solely as continuing medical education and is not intended to promote off-label use of any pharmaceutical product.
Faculty Disclosures: It is the policy of EB Medicine to ensure objectivity, balance, independence, transparency, and scientific rigor in all CME-sponsored educational activities. All faculty participating in the planning or implementation of a sponsored activity are expected to disclose to the audience any relevant financial relationships and to assist in resolving any conflict of interest that may arise from the relationship. In compliance with all ACCME Essentials, Standards, and Guidelines, all faculty for this CME activity were asked to complete a full disclosure statement. The information received is as follows: Dr. Pedigo, Dr. Knight, Dr. Stewart, Dr. Mishler, Dr. Toscano, Dr. Jagoda, and their related parties report no relevant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturer(s) of any commercial product(s) discussed in this educational presentation.
Commercial Support: This issue of Emergency Medicine Practice did not receive any commercial support.
Earning Credit: Two Convenient Methods: (1) Go online to www.ebmedicine.net/CME and click on the title of the article. (2) Mail or fax the CME Answer And Evaluation Form (included with your June and December issues) to EB Medicine.
Hardware/Software Requirements: You will need a Macintosh or PC to access the online archived articles and CME testing.
Additional Policies: For additional policies, including our statement of conflict of interest, source of funding, statement of informed consent, and statement of human and animal rights, visit www.ebmedicine.net/policies.