Inhaled nitric oxide therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome in children

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Standardize Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in the PICU

Background:

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is a potent pulmonary vasodilator used off-label to treat refractory hypoxemia in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). However, clinical practice varies widely, and there is limited evidence to support this expensive therapy. Our objective was to test whether implementation of a clinical guideline for iNO therapy would decrease practice variability, reduce ineffective iNO utilization, and control iNO-related costs.

Methods:

We used quality improvement (QI) methodology to standardize the use of iNO in a single quaternary care PICU (noncardiac). All PICU patients receiving iNO therapy between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, were included. The QI intervention was the development and implementation of a clinical guideline for iNO initiation, continuation, and weaning. iNO use was monitored using statistical process control charts.

Results:

We derived baseline data from 30 preguideline patients (35 separate iNO courses) compared with 33 postguideline patients (36 separate iNO courses). Despite similar baseline characteristics, disease severity, and degree of hypoxemia, postguideline patients had a shorter median [interquartile range (IQR)] duration of iNO therapy than preguideline patients [76 (48–124) hours versus 162 (87–290) hours; P < 0.0001]. We have sustained the reduced iNO usage throughout the postguideline period. Postguideline patients also had improved provider documentation and a median iNO cost savings of $4,600.

Conclusions:

Implementation of iNO usage guidelines was associated with decreased iNO usage and cost of iNO therapy in the PICU.

Paediatric ventilation treatment of acute lung injury in Nordic intensive care units

Background

Treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in children is largely based on extrapolated knowledge obtained from adults and which varies between different hospitals. This study explores ventilation treatment strategies for children with ARDS in the Nordic countries, and compares these with international practice.

Methods

In October 2012, a questionnaire covering ventilation treatment strategies for children aged 1 month to 6 years of age with ARDS was sent to 21 large Nordic intensive care units that treat children with ARDS. Pre‐terms and children with congenital conditions were excluded.

Results

Eighteen of the 21 (86%) targeted intensive care units responded to the questionnaire. Fifty per cent of these facilities were paediatric intensive care units. Written guidelines existed in 44% of the units. Fifty per cent of the units frequently used cuffed endotracheal tubes. Ventilation was achieved by pressure control for 89% vs. volume control for 11% of units. Bronchodilators were used by all units, whereas steroids usage was 83% and surfactant 39%. Inhaled nitric oxide and high frequency oscillation were available in 94% of the units. Neurally adjusted ventilator assist was used by 44% of the units. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation could be started in 44% of the units.

Conclusion

Ventilation treatment strategies for paediatric ARDS in the Nordic countries are relatively uniform and largely in accordance with international practice. The use of steroids and surfactant is more frequent than shown in other studies.