Mucoactive agent use in adult UK Critical Care Units: a survey of health care professionals' perception, pharmacists' description of practice, and point prevalence of mucoactive use in invasively mechanically ventilated patients

Chest physiotherapy for mechanically ventilated children: a survey of current UK practice

OBJECTIVES

Chest physiotherapy is a treatment option for mechanically ventilated children. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding its value and informal discussions suggest variation in practice. This study describes chest physiotherapy practices for mechanically ventilated children in the UK and explores clinical decision making related to its delivery.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study, using an anonymous, electronic survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Qualified physiotherapists working in UK NHS paediatric intensive care units (PICUs).

RESULTS

The response rate was 61% (72/118), this included physiotherapists from 26/27 (96%) PICUs. All participants reported using manual hyperinflations and position changes 'always' or 'often'. Variation in practice was evident for some techniques, including Metaneb® and percussion. DNase (99%, 71/72) and hypertonic saline (90%, 65/72) were the most frequently used mucoactives: 91% (59/65) of physiotherapists reported only nebulising hypertonic saline and 69% (49/71) use both nebulised and instilled DNase. Use and delivery of N-acetylcysteine was inconsistent (nebulised only 55%, 26/47; instilled only 15%, 7/47; both 30%, 14/47). Chest physiotherapy was most commonly delivered with a nurse (67%, 48/72). Clinical decision making processes were comparable between physiotherapists and encompassed three main elements: individual patient assessment, involvement of the multidisciplinary team, and risk versus benefit analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of chest physiotherapy treatments and adjuncts were used with ventilated children. Variation was apparent and may be due to individual preferences of those training staff or local policies. Pragmatic, interventional studies are required to determine best practice. Further exploration is necessary to understand the variation in practice and intricacies of decision making.

Use of mechanical insufflation exsufflation and manual techniques in an intubated adult with COVID-19 positioned in prone-A case study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The therapeutic benefits of prone positioning have been described over the last 50 years culminating in a systematic review supporting this management strategy for patients with severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Early work detailing treatment approaches for COVID-19 have advocated the use of prone positioning. Limited data exists regarding physiotherapy intervention in patients with COVID-19 owing to the recent emergence of this novel disease. Despite the acknowledged beneficial effects of physiotherapy on secretion clearance and lung recruitment in the general critical care population, there is a lack of evidence pertaining to physiotherapeutic intervention for acutely unwell intubated adults in prone lying.

METHODS

This case study report follows the CARE case report guidelines. One patient with COVID-19 pneumonitis who underwent physiotherapy intervention in prone lying is discussed. Informed consent was gained from next of kin for data to be published.

RESULTS

Treatment techniques including mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in prone were feasible and well tolerated by this patient with only transient adverse effects noted. Treatment techniques assisted with secretion clearance.

DISCUSSION

Further work on safety, feasibility, and efficacy of physiotherapy intervention in patients with and without COVID-19 in prone will contribute to the evidence base on this subject.

Airway clearance techniques and use of mucoactive agents for adult critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure: a qualitative study exploring UK physiotherapy practice

OBJECTIVES

To explore and describe current UK physiotherapy practice relating to airway clearance techniques and mucoactive agents in critically ill adult patients with acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

A descriptive, qualitative study using focus group interviews. Focus groups were audio-recorded, independently transcribed, and data analysed thematically. Participants Senior, experienced physiotherapists, clinically active in critical care.

RESULTS

Fifteen physiotherapists participated in four interview sessions. Five themes emerged describing airway clearance techniques: 'Repertoire of airway clearance techniques', 'Staffing and skillset', 'Commencing respiratory physiotherapy', 'Technique selection', and 'Determining effectiveness' were themes related to airway clearance techniques. Five themes were also identified in relation to mucoactive agents: 'Use in clinical practice', 'Decision to commence', 'Selection of agent', 'Stopping mucoactive agents', and 'Determining effectiveness'. A summary of key features of standard practice was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard UK physiotherapy practice of airway clearance techniques is variable, but patient-centred and targeted to individual need, with adjunctive use of mucoactive agents to enhance and optimise patient management if required. Based on this study, key features of airway clearance techniques have been summarised to help capture standard care, which could be used in future trials involving ACT as part of usual care.

Mucoactive agents for acute respiratory failure in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause of admission to intensive care units (ICUs). Mucoactive agents are medications that promote mucus clearance and are frequently administered in patients with ARF, despite a lack of evidence to underpin clinical decision making. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if the use of mucoactive agents in patients with ARF improves clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We searched electronic and grey literature (January 2020). Two reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data and quality assessed studies. We included trials of adults receiving ventilatory support for ARF and involving at least one mucoactive agent compared with placebo or standard care. Outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation. Meta-analysis was undertaken using random-effects modelling and certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials were included (1712 patients), investigating four different mucoactive agents. Mucoactive agents showed no effect on duration of mechanical ventilation (seven trials, mean difference (MD) -1.34, 95% CI -2.97 to 0.29, I²=82%, very low certainty) or mortality, hospital stay and ventilator-free days. There was an effect on reducing ICU length of stay in the mucoactive agent groups (10 trials, MD -3.22, 95% CI -5.49 to -0.96, I²=89%, very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

Our findings do not support the use of mucoactive agents in critically ill patients with ARF. The existing evidence is of low quality. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the role of specific mucoactive agents in critically ill patients with ARF.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095408.