The Ability of Critical Care Physicians to Identify Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony Using Waveform Analysis: A National Survey

• Published in: Respiratory care Vol. 69; no. 2; p. 176
• Main Authors: Chelbi, Rym, Thabet, Farah, Ennouri, Emna, Meddeb, Khaoula, Toumi, Radhouane, Zghidi, Marwa, Ben Saida, Imen, Boussarsar, Mohamed
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.02.2024
• Subjects: identification accuracy; patient-ventilator asynchrony; mechanical ventilation; education and training; critical care physicians; respiratory support; waveform analysis
• ISSN: 1943-3654
• DOI: 10.4187/respcare.11360

Improved patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) identification using waveform analysis by critical care physicians (CCPs) may improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess the ability of CCPs to identify different types of PVAs using waveform analysis as well as factors related to this ability. We surveyed 12 university-affiliated medical ICUs (MICUs) in Tunisia. CCPs practicing in these MICUs were asked to visually identify 4 clinical cases, each corresponding to a different PVA. We collected the following characteristics regarding CCPs: scientific grade, years of experience, prior training in mechanical ventilation, prior exposure to waveform analysis, and the characteristics of the MICUs in which they practice. Respondents were categorized into 2 groups based on their ability to correctly identify PVAs (defined as the correct identification of at least 3 of the 4 PVA cases). Univariate analysis was performed to identify factors related to the correct identification of PVA. Among 136 included CCPs, 72 (52.9%) responded to the present survey. The respondents comprised 59 (81.9%) residents, and 13 (18.1%) senior physicians. Further, 50 (69.4%) respondents had attended prior training in mechanical ventilation. Moreover, 21 (29.2%) of the respondents could correctly identify PVAs. Double-triggering was the most frequently identified PVA type, 43 (59.7%), followed by auto-triggering, 36 (50%); premature cycling, 28 (38.9%); and ineffective efforts, 25 (34.7%). Univariate analysis indicated that senior physicians had a better ability to correctly identify PVAs than residents (7 [53.8%] vs 14 [23.7%], = .044). The present study revealed a significant deficiency in the accurate visual identification of PVAs among CCPs in the MICUs. When compared to residents, senior physicians exhibited a notably superior aptitude for correctly recognizing PVAs.