Ventilator Discontinuation Protocols
英文版 心脏病与2型糖尿病

Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci.ISSN0077-8923 ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCESIssue:The Year in Diabetes and ObesityCardiovascular disease and glycemic control in type2 diabetes:now that the dust is settling from largeclinical trialsFrancesco Giorgino,Anna Leonardini,and Luigi LaviolaDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation,Section of Internal Medicine,Endocrinology,Andrology and Metabolic Diseases,University of Bari Aldo Moro,Bari,ItalyAddress for correspondence:Francesco Giorgino,M.D.,Ph.D.,Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Section of Internal Medicine,Endocrinology,Andrology and Metabolic Diseases,University of Bari Aldo Moro,Piazza Giulio Cesare,11,I-70124Bari,Italy.francesco.giorgino@uniba.itThe relationship between glucose control and cardiovascular outcomes in type2diabetes has been a matter of controversy over the years.Although epidemiological evidence exists in favor of an adverse role of poor glucose control on cardiovascular events,intervention trials have been less conclusive.The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes(ACCORD)study,the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease(ADV ANCE)study,and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial(V ADT)have shown no beneficial effect of intensive glucose control on primary cardiovascular endpoints in type2diabetes.However,subgroup analysis has provided evidence suggesting that the potential beneficial effect largely depends on patients’characteristics,including age,diabetes duration,previous glucose control,presence of cardiovascular disease,and risk of hypoglycemia.The benefit of strict glucose control on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality may be indeed hampered by the extent and frequency of hypoglycemic events and could be enhanced if glucose-lowering medications,capable of exerting favorable effects on the cardiovascular system,were used.This review examines the relationship between intensive glucose control and cardiovascular outcomes in type2diabetes,addressing the need for individualization of glucose targets and careful consideration of the benefit/risk profile of antidiabetes medications.Keywords:type2diabetes;HbA1c;macrovascular disease;blood pressure;lipids;hypoglycemia;glucagon-like peptide-1;ADV ANCE;ACCORD;V ADTIntroductionCardiovascular disease(CVD)is the major cause of death in patients with type2diabetes(T2D), as more than60%of T2D patients die of my-ocardial infarction(MI)or stroke,and an even greater proportion of patients have serious burden-some complications.1The impact of glucose low-ering on cardiovascular complications is a hotly debated issue.The United Kingdom Prospective Di-abetes Study(UKPDS)was thefirst clinical trial to provide key evidence of the importance of using in-tensive therapy for diabetes control in individuals with newly diagnosed T2D.However,although the insulin or sulphonylurea-based intensified glucose-control treatment was effective in reducing the risk of major microvascular endpoints,the effects on CVD risk were modest and did not reach statisti-cal significance.2Recent large clinical trials(often referred to as“megatrials”),the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease(ADV ANCE),3Action to Con-trol Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes(ACCORD),4 and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial(V ADT),5 reported no significant decrease in primary cardio-vascular endpoints with intensive glucose control. In the ADV ANCE study,11,140type2diabet-ics were randomly assigned to receive either stan-dard or intensive glucose control,defined as the use of gliclazide plus any other drug required to achieve a glycosylated hemoglobin(HbA1c)level of 6.5%or less(Table1).3After a median follow-up of 5.0years,the mean HbA1c was lower in thedoi:10.1111/nyas.12044Giorgino et al.Intensive glucose control and cardiovascular risk Table1.Age,diabetes duration,median follow-up,HbA1c values,and outcomes in the ACCORD and ADV ANCE studies and the V ADTDiabetes HbA1c(%):duration(year):Median intensive Primary All-cause Age intensive follow-up History versus endpoint HR mortality HR Study(year)versus standard(year)of CVD standard Primary endpoint(95%CI)(95%CI)ACCORD(n=10,251)62.2±6.810vs.10 3.435% 6.4vs.7.5Nonfatal MI,nonfatalstroke,or death fromCVD0.90(0.78–1.04) 1.22(1.01–1.46)ADV ANCE (n=11,140)66±6.08.0±6.4vs.7.9±6.35.032%6.53±0.91vs.7.30±1.26Death fromcardiovascular causes,nonfatal MI,ornonfatal stroke0.94(0.84–1.06)0.93(0.83–1.06)V ADT(n=1,791)60±9.011.5±8vs.11.5±75.640%6.9vs.8.4MI,stroke,death fromCVD,CHF,surgery forvascular disease,inoperable CAD,oramputation forischemic gangrene0.88(0.74–1.05) 1.07(0.81–1.42)intensive control group(6.5%vs.7.3%),with a reduction in the incidence of combined major macrovascular and microvascular events primarily because of a reduction in the incidence of nephropa-thy.There were no significant effects of the inten-sive glucose control on major macrovascular events, death from cardiovascular causes,or death from any cause.Similarly,in the V ADT,1,791suboptimally controlled type2diabetics,40%with established CVD,were randomized to receive either intensive glucose control,targeting an absolute reduction of 1.5%in HbA1c levels,or standard glucose control (Table1).5After a median follow-up of5.6years, HbA1c was lower in the intensive-therapy group (6.9%vs.8.4%).Nevertheless,there was no sig-nificant difference between the two groups in the incidence of major cardiovascular events,or in the rate of death from any cause.ACCORD was another study designed to determine whether intensive glu-cose control would reduce the rate of cardiovas-cular events(Table1).4In this study,10,251type 2diabetics with median baseline HbA1c of8.1% were randomly assigned to receive either intensive therapy targeting an HbA1c level within the normal range,that is,below6.0%,or standard therapy tar-geting HbA1c between7.0%and7.9%.The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal MI,nonfatal stroke,or death from cardiovascular causes.Even though the rate of nonfatal MI was significantly lower in the intensive therapy arm,thefinding of higher all-cause and cardiovascular cause mortal-ity in this group led to discontinuation of the in-tensive therapy after a mean follow-up of3.5years (Fig.1).Notably,hypoglycemia requiring assistance and weight gain of more than10kg were more fre-quent in the intensive therapy group.The results of the ACCORD study raised concern about not only the effectiveness but also the safety of inten-sive glycemic control in type2diabetics.Prespec-ified subgroup analysis of the participants in this trial suggested that patients in the intensive group without history of cardiovascular event before ran-domization or whose baseline HbA1c level was8.0% or less may have had fewer fatal or nonfatal car-diovascular events than did patients in the standard therapy group.Several recent meta-analyses of randomized con-trolled trials have also investigated the effects of intensive glucose lowering on all-cause mortal-ity,cardiovascular death,and vascular events in T2D.6–10In the largest and most recent meta-analysis by Boussageon et al.,13studies were in-cluded.6Of the34,533patients evaluated,18,315 received intensive glucose-lowering treatment and 16,218standard treatment.Intensive treatment did not significantly affect all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death.The results of this meta-analysis showed limited benefit of intensive glucose-lowering therapy on all-cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular causes,and a10%reduction in the risk of microalbuminuria.6Results from other meta-analyses have also shown no effects ofIntensive glucose control and cardiovascular risk Giorgino etal.Figure 1.Effects of intensive glucose control on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction in the ACCORD study.CV,cardiovascular.∗P<0.05.Adapted from Ref.4.intensive glucose control on all-cause or cardiovas-cular mortality,while indicating a modest15–17% reduction in the incidence of nonfatal MI in these cohorts.7–10Several potential factors could have contributed to limit the potential benefit of intensive glucose-lowering therapies on CVD prevention in T2D in-dividuals in studies such as the ACCORD and AD-V ANCE and the V ADT:(1)Concomitant targeting of other potentiallymore potent cardiovascular risk factors,suchas blood pressure and lipids,might havedampened the favorable effects of controllinghyperglycemia.(2)Intensive control of hyperglycemia could havebeen directed to patients unable to exhibit theexpected benefit due to their specific clinicalcharacteristics(“wrong”patients).(3)Limited benefit might have derived from usingglucose-lowering drugs with no favorable im-pact on the global cardiovascular risk profile.(4)Glucose-lowering drugs might have producedadverse effects on the cardiovascular systemby inducing weight gain and hypoglycemicevents,resulting in somewhat increased riskfor CVD and mortality(“imperfect”drugs).(5)Excess mortality might have potentially re-sulted from using too many drugs and/or toocomplex drug regimens,leading to undesir-able drug–drug interactions with a potentiallyharmful impact on patients’health.These diverse factors and their potential role in the relationship between intensive glucose control and CVD/mortality are outlined in Figure2,and will be discussed individually below.Limited benefit due to other therapies Although several studies have focused on intensive glycemic control to decrease the risks of macrovas-cular and microvascular diseases in T2D,glucose control is only one of the factors to be considered. Comprehensive risk factor management,including blood pressure control,lipid management,weight reduction in overweight or obese individuals,and smoking cessation,are also needed.The results of the ACCORD and ADV ANCE studies and the V ADT should be interpreted in the context of comprehen-sive care of patients with diabetes.Interventions for simultaneous optimal control of comorbidities of-ten present in type2diabetics,such as hyperten-sion and hyperlipidemia,have been shown to be a more effective strategy in reducing cardiovascular risk than targeting only blood glucose levels per se.11 Evidence for an aggressive approach to lipid and blood pressure control was supported by the re-sults from the Steno-2study.11,12In Steno-2,inves-tigators used intensified multifactorial intervention with improved glycemia,renin–angiotensin system blockers,aspirin,and lipid-lowering agents and evaluated whether this approach would have an ef-fect on the rates of death from cardiovascular causes and from any cause.11,12The primary endpoint at 13.3years of follow-up was the time to death from any cause.Intensive therapy was also associated with a significantly lower risk of death from cardiovascu-lar causes and of cardiovascular events.The Steno-2study did demonstrate a difference in levels of glycemia achieved when compared with the AC-CORD study:4,11HbA1c was a mean of8.4%at study entry and7.9%at end of study intervention for the intensively treated group,whereas it was8.8%at baseline and9.0%at study end for conventional treatment.In addition,only a limited proportion of subjects in the intensively treated group reached an HbA1c level of less than6.5%(i.e.,∼15%),and this proportion was not statistically different than in the conventionally treated group,indicating poor success in achieving the prespecified glucose target and somewhat reducing the relevance of the spe-cific intervention on the hyperglycemia component for CVD and microvascular disease prevention.The observational study has continued,and the differ-ences observed in glycemia between intensive andGiorgino et al.Intensive glucose control and cardiovascularriskFigure2.Relationship between intensive glucose control and cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in the ACCORD study and other megatrials.The potential mechanisms affecting this relationship and limiting the clinical benefit are outlined in the box on the left.CV,cardiovascular;CVD,cardiovascular disease.conventional treatments are much less than at endof intervention.Nevertheless,over the long-termperiod of follow-up,intensive intervention with avaried drug regimen and lifestyle modification hadsustained beneficial effects with respect to vascularcomplications and rates of death from any cause andfrom cardiovascular causes.12Blood pressureThe ACCORD study also had an embedded bloodpressure trial that examined whether blood pressurelowering to systolic blood pressure(SBP)less than120mm Hg provided greater cardiovascular protec-tion than a SBP of130–140mm Hg in T2D patientsat high risk for CVD.13A total of4,733participantswere randomly assigned to intensive therapy(SBP <120mm Hg)or standard therapy(SBP<140mm Hg),with the mean follow-up being4.7years.Theblood pressure levels achieved in the intensive andstandard groups were119/64mm Hg and133/70mm Hg,respectively;this difference was attainedwith an average of3.4medications per participantin the intensive group and2.1in the standard ther-apy group.The intensive antihypertensive therapyin the ACCORD blood pressure trial did not consid-erably reduce the primary cardiovascular outcomeor the rate of death from any cause.However,theintensive arm of blood pressure control reduced therate of total stroke and nonfatal stroke,with the estimated number needed to treat with intensive blood pressure therapy to prevent one stroke over five years being89.There were indicators of possi-ble harm associated with intensive blood pressure lowering(SBP<120mm Hg),including a rate of serious adverse events in the intensive arm.It should be noted that of the subjects investigated in the ACCORD glucose control trial∼85%were on antihypertensive medications,and their blood pres-sure levels were126.4/66.9and127.4/67.7in the intensive and standard groups,respectively,a differ-ence that was statistically significant(P<0.001) (Table2).4Thus,the effects of intensive glucose lowering on the CVD and other outcomes were ex-amined in a context in which blood pressure was being actively targeted,with possible differences between the intensively and conventionally treated cohorts.The ADV ANCE study also included a blood pres-sure intervention trial.In this study,treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme(ACE)inhibitor and a thiazide-type diuretic reduced the rate of death but not the composite macrovascular out-come.However,this trial had no specified targets for the randomized comparison,and the mean SBP in the intensive group(135mm Hg)was not as low as the mean SBP in the ACCORD standard-therapy group.14However,a post hoc analysis of blood pres-sure control in6,400patients with diabetes andIntensive glucose control and cardiovascular risk Giorgino et al. Table2.Blood pressure and lipid levels and use of statin,antihypertensive medications,and aspirin in the ACCORD and ADV ANCE studies and the V ADT participants at study end(adapted from Refs.3–5)ACCORD(n=10,251)aADV ANCE(n=11,140)b V ADT(n=1,791)cStandard Intensive Standard Intensive Standard Intensive Blood pressure(mm Hg)Systolic128±16126±17137±18135±17125±15127±16 Diastolic68±1067±1074±1073±1069±1068±10 Cholesterol(mg/dL)LDL87±3387±33103±41102±3880±3180±33 HDL49±13(♂)49±13(♂)48±1448±1441±1240±1140±11(♀)40±10(♀)Total164±42163±42153±40150±40 Triglycerides(mg/dL)166±114160±125161±102151±94159±104151±173 On statin(%)888848468385 On antihypertensivemedications(%)858389887576 On aspirin(%)767655578586a Intensive(target HbA1c<6%)vs.standard(HbA1c7–7.9%).b Intensive(target HbA1c<6.5%)vs.standard(HbA1c>6.5%).c Intensive(target HbA1c4.8–6.0%)vs.standard(HbA1c8–9.0%).Abbreviations:HDL,high-density lipoprotein;LDL,low-density lipoprotein;♂,men;♀,women.coronary artery disease enrolled in the International Verapamil/Trandolapril Study(INVEST)demon-strated that tight control(<130mm Hg)was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care(130–140mm Hg).15In the V ADT,blood pressure,lipids,diet,and lifestyle were treated identically in both arms.By improving blood pressure control in an identical manner in both glucose arms,the V ADT excluded the effect of blood pressure differences on cardiovas-cular events between treatment arms and reduced the overall risk of macrovascular complications dur-ing the trial.5Participants in the V ADT(n=1,791) with hypertension(72.1%of total)received stepped treatment to maintain blood pressure below the tar-get of130/80mm Hg in standard and intensive glycemic treatment groups.Blood pressure levels of all subjects at baseline and on-study were analyzed to detect associations with cardiovascular risk.The primary outcome was the time from randomiza-tion to thefirst occurrence of MI,stroke,conges-tive heart failure,surgery for vascular disease,in-operable coronary disease,amputation for ischemic gangrene,or cardiovascular death.From data analy-sis,increased risk of cardiovascular events with SBP ≥140mm Hg emphasizes the need for treatment of systolic hypertension.Also,this study for the first time demonstrated that diastolic blood pressure (DBP)<70mm Hg in T2D patients was indepen-dently associated with elevated cardiovascular risk, even when SBP was on target.16Lipid profileIt has been widely demonstrated that intensive targeting of low-density lipoprotein(LDL)choles-terol contributes to CVD prevention in T2D.As a consequence,most guidelines suggest a target LDL-cholesterol level below100mg/dL as the primary goal in T2D individuals,with the option of achieving an LDL-cholesterol level below70mg/dL in those with overt CVD.Regarding the overall lipid-lowering approach in the ACCORD glucose control study,it should be observed that mean LDL cholesterol was below90mg/dL in both the intensive and standard glucose control arms,and that88%of subjects were on statin therapy.4Thus, the results from this study do not clarify whether lipid control and glycemic control,respectively,areGiorgino et al.Intensive glucose control and cardiovascularriskFigure3.All-cause mortality in intensive versus standard glycemia groups according to use of antihypertensive medications, statins,and aspirin in the ACCORD and ADV ANCE studies.∗P=0.0305for subjects on aspirin versus subjects not on aspirin. Adapted from Refs.3and18.related or synergistic,since the large majority of enrolled subjects were already receiving a lipid control regimen.Data from the Steno-2trial on combined control of glucose,lipids,and blood pressure levels demonstrated significant short-and long-term benefits from this multifactorial approach.11In the study,the effect seemed to be cumulative rather than synergistic.Recent results from the ACCORD-LIPID study indicate that intensive lipid control(i.e.,addition of afibrate to statin therapy)does not reduce car-diovascular events.17Specifically,the lipid-lowering arm of ACCORD failed to demonstrate any ben-efit of add-on therapy with fenofibrate to LDL-lowering treatment with HMG-CoA reductase in-hibitors(statins)on vascular outcomes in patients with diabetes.However,data from earlier studies and from a subgroup analysis of ACCORD indi-cate a probable benefit of adding treatment with fibric acid derivatives to individuals with persis-tently elevated triglyceride levels and low high-density lipoprotein(HDL)cholesterol despite statin therapy.17In the ACCORD and ADV ANCE studies and the V ADT,a large proportion of subjects,ranging from55%to85%,were also treated with aspirin (Table2).Thus,results from ADV ANCE,ACCORD, and V ADT suggest that a large proportion of par-ticipants in these trials,which were being treated intensively or less intensively for glucose targets, received extensive antihypertensive,lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet medications.Median levels of SBP, SDP,and LDL cholesterol in these cohorts were also indicative of a significant proportion of them be-ing adequately controlled for blood pressure and lipid targets(Table2).Therefore,the possibility ex-ists that active interventions for simultaneous con-trol of hypertension and hyperlipidemia and use of aspirin may have affected the impact of intensive glucose control on cardiovascular outcomes in the megatrials.Subgroups analyses,however,do not ap-parently support this conclusion(Fig.3).Whether patients were on antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications was not associated with a different out-come of the intensive glucose control on mortality in ACCORD and ADV ANCE patients,even thoughIntensive glucose control and cardiovascular risk Giorgino et al.the different groups were largely unbalanced in size. Only aspirin use in the ACCORD study seemed to modulate the effects of intensive versus standard glucose control on mortality.18The“wrong patient”concept and the need for individualization of glucose targets The ADV ANCE and ACCORD studies and the V ADT provide conflicting evidence of mortality risk with intensive glycemic control.These trials showed an approximate15%reduction in nonfatal MI with no benefit or harm in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.Potential explanations for the lack of im-pact of intensive glycemic control on CVD can be found in the patients’characteristics.Indeed,these studies were of shorter duration and enrolled gener-ally older patients than previous studies,including the DCCT and UKPDS in which the intensive con-trol had shown better outcomes.In addition,mean diabetes duration was longer and a greater portion of patients had established CV disease in the mega-trials(approximately32–40%)than in earlier trials (Table1).It is also possible that the follow-up of these studies was too short to detect a clinical ben-efit.Consistent with this hypothesis,in the UKPDS no macrovascular benefit was noted in the inten-sive control arm in thefirst10years of follow-up. Nevertheless,posttrial monitoring for an additional 10years(UKPDS80)revealed a15%risk reduction in MI and13%reduction in all-cause mortality in the intensive treatment group.19A possible explanation is that the wrong patients were investigated in the megatrials(Fig.2).Indeed, the population of the ACCORD study may not rep-resent the average patient with T2D in clinical prac-tice.Participants in this trial had T2D on average for10years at the time of enrollment,had higher HbA1c levels than most type2diabetic patients in the United States and most Western countries to-day(average of8.2%at baseline),and had known heart disease or at least two risk factors in addi-tion to diabetes,such as high blood pressure,high cholesterol levels,obesity,and smoking.4In the UKPDS,the benefits of intensive glycemic control on CVD were observed only after a long duration of intervention in newly diagnosed younger patients.2 In older patients with T2D with longer disease dura-tion,atherosclerotic disease may already have been established and thus intensive glucose control may have had little benefit.Conversely,patients with shorter disease duration,lower HbA1c,and/or lack of established CVD might have benefited signifi-cantly from more intensive glycemic control.20,21 Relevant to this concept,the V ADT showed that ad-vanced CVD,as demonstrated by computed tomog-raphy(CT)-detectable coronary artery calcium,was associated with negative outcomes.In a substudy co-hort of301T2D participants in V ADT,the ability of intensive glucose therapy compared with standard therapy to reduce cardiovascular events was exam-ined based on the extent of coronary atherosclerosis as measured by a CT-detectable coronary artery cal-cium score(CAC).The data showed that there was a progressive diminution of the benefit of intensive glucose control with increasing CAC.In patients with CAC≤100,1of52individuals experienced an event(HR for intensive therapy=0.08;range, 0.008–0.770;P=0.03),whereas11of62patients with a CAC>100had an event(HR=0.74;range, 0.46–1.20;P=0.21).Thus,this subgroup analy-sis indicates that intensive glycemic therapy may be most effective in those with less extensive coronary atherosclerosis.22Why does intensive treatment of hyperglycemia appear to be ineffective in reducing cardiovascular events in T2D with advanced atherosclerosis?Two potential mechanisms may be involved.First,once the atherosclerotic plaque has developed,modified lipoproteins,activated vascular cells,and altered im-mune cell signaling may generate a self-propagating process that maintains atherogenesis,even in the face of improved glucose control.Second,advanced glycosylation end-product formation,which may be involved in CVD,is not readily reversible and may require more than three tofive years of in-tensive glucose control to be reverted.Thus,the presence of multiple cardiovascular risk factors or established CVD may have reduced the benefits of intensive glycemic control in the high-risk cohort of ACCORD,ADV ANCE,and V ADT compared with the low-risk population of the UKPDS cohort,of whom only a minority had prior CVD.23The pres-ence of long-standing disease and prolonged prior poor glycemic control may be additional factors ac-celerating the progression of atherosclerotic lesions in T2D.The goal of individualizing HbA1c targets has gained more attraction after these recent clinical trials in older patients with established T2D failed to show a benefit from intensive glucose-loweringGiorgino et al.Intensive glucose control and cardiovascular riskTable3.Potential criteria for individualization of glucose targets in type2diabetes2–5,25,29HbA1c HbA1c Criterion<6.5–7.0%7.0–8.0% Age(years)<55>60 Diabetes duration(years)<10>10Life expectancy(years)>5<5 Possibility to performIGC for>5yearsYes No Usual HbA1c level(%)<8.0>8.0 CVD No Yes Prone to hypoglycemia No No Reduction of HbA1clevel upon IGCYes NoAbbreviations:CVD,cardiovascular disease;IGC,in-tensive glucose control.therapies on CVD outcomes.Recommendations suggest that the goals should be individualized,such that(1)certain populations(children,pregnant women,and elderly patients)require special con-siderations and(2)more stringent glycemic goals (i.e.,a normal HbA1c<6.0%)may further re-duce complications at the cost of increased risk of hypoglycemia.24For the latter,the recommen-dations also suggest that less intensive glycemic goals may be indicated in patients with severe or frequent hypoglycemia.With regard to the less intensive glycemic goals,perhaps consideration should be given to the high-risk patient with mul-tiple risk factors and CVD,as evaluated in the ACCORD study.4Thus,aiming for a HbA1c of 7.0–8.0%may be a reasonable goal in patients with very long duration of diabetes,history of se-vere hypoglycemia,advanced atherosclerosis,sig-nificant comorbidities,and advanced age/frailty (Table3),even though with what priority each one of these criteria should be considered is not clear at present(current recommendations from scientific societies also do not provide this spe-cific information).In younger patients without documented macrovascular disease or the above-mentioned conditions,the goal of attaining an HbA1c<6.5–7.0%may provide long-lasting bene-fits.In patients with limited life expectancy,more liberal HbA1c values may be pursued.In deter-mining the HbA1c target for CVD prevention,one should consider that at least three tofive years are usually required before possible differences in the incidence of nonfatal MI in T2D are observed.2 Thus,a clinical setting that allows tight glucose control to be implemented for this period of time should be available.Finally,an excess mortality was observed in the ACCORD study in those T2D in-dividuals who showed an unexpected increase in HbA1c levels upon institution of intensive glucose control.25Accordingly,patients exhibiting the pat-tern of worsening glycemic control when exposed to intensive treatment should be set at higher glucose targets(Table3).The above guidelines are apparently incorpo-rated into the updated version of the American Diabetes Association and the European Associa-tion for the Study of Diabetes recommendations on the management of hyperglycemia in nonpreg-nant adults with T2D.The new recommendations are less prescriptive and more patient centered.In-dividualized treatment is explicitly defined as the cornerstone of success.Treatment strategies should be tailored to individual patient needs,preferences, and tolerances and based on differences in age and disease course.Other factors affecting individual-ized treatment plans include specific symptoms,co-morbid conditions,weight,race/ethnicity,sex,and lifestyle.26Current“imperfect”glucose-lowering drugsThe inability of ACCORD,ADV ANCE,and V ADT to demonstrate significant reductions in CVD out-comes with intensive glycemic control also suggests that current pharmacological tools for treating hy-perglycemia in patients with more advanced T2D may have counterbalancing consequences for the cardiovascular system.The available agents used to treat diabetes have not been conclusively shown to reduce macrovascular disease and,in some in-stances,their chronic use may promote negative cardiovascular effects in diabetic subjects despite improvement of hyperglycemia.Importantly,these adverse cardiovascular side effects appear in several instances to be directly due to the mode of drug ac-tion.Selection of a treatment regimen for patients with T2D includes evaluation of the effects of med-ications on overall cardiovascular risk.27 Sulfonylureas have the benefit of acting rapidly to lower glucose levels but,unfortunately,on a。
A polyurethane cuffed endotracheal tube is associated with decreased rates of ventilator-associated

A polyurethane cuffed endotracheal tube is associated with decreased rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia ☆Melissa ler MD a,⁎,Jennifer L.Arndt MS,CIC b ,Mark A.Konkle MPA,RRT c ,Carol E.Chenoweth MD d ,Theodore J.Iwashyna MD,PhD e ,Kevin R.Flaherty MD,MS e ,Robert C.Hyzy MD eaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI bDepartment of Infection Control and Epidemiology,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI cDepartment of Respiratory Care,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI dDepartment of Infection Control and Epidemiology,Division of Infectious Diseases,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI eDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MIKeywords:Pneumonia,Ventilator-associated;Nosocomial infections;Ventilators,Mechanical;Endotracheal tubeAbstractPurpose:The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tube would result in a decrease in ventilator-associated pneumonia rate.Materials and Methods:We replaced conventional endotracheal tube with a polyurethane-cuff endotracheal tube (Microcuff,Kimberly-Clark Corporation,Rosewell,Ga)in all adult mechanically ventilated patients throughout our large academic hospital from July 2007to June 2008.We retrospectively compared the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia before,during,and after the intervention year by interrupted time-series analysis.Results:Ventilator-associated pneumonia rates decreased from 5.3per 1000ventilator days before the use of the polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tube to 2.8per 1000ventilator days during the intervention year (P =.0138).During the first 3months after return to conventional tubes,the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was 3.5/1000ventilator e of the polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tube was associated with an incidence risk ratio of ventilator-associated pneumonia of 0.572(95%confidence interval,0.340-0.963).In statistical regression analysis controlling for other possible alterations in the hospital environment,as measured by rate of tracheostomy-ventilator-associated pneumonia,the incidence risk ratio of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients intubated with polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tube was 0.565(P =.032;95%confidence interval,0.335-0.953).Conclusions:Use of a polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tube was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in our study.©2010Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.☆Funding/Support:This study was partially funded by Kimberly-Clark Corporation,Rosewell,Ga,which manufactures Microcuff.Kimberly-Clark Corporation supplied the Microcuff polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tubes for the intervention year free of charge.Kimberly-Clark Corporation employees were not involved in the concept,design,or conduct of the study,nor were they involved in the analysis of data or review of the manuscript before submission.Dr Robert Hyzy has received a consulting fee of $5800in 2008and a $6000unrestricted educational grant in 2007from the Kimberly-Clark Corporation.⁎Corresponding author.3916Taubman Center,Ann Arbor,MI 48109-5360,USA Tel.:+17349365201;fax:+17349365048.E-mail address:melmille@ (M.A.Miller).0883-9441/$–see front matter ©2010Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.05.035Journal of Critical Care (2010)xx ,xxx –xxx1.IntroductionVentilator-associated pneumonia(VAP)is a significant cause of increased morbidity and cost in mechanically ventilated patients.It has been associated with a greater duration of mechanical ventilation,intensive care unit(ICU) and hospital length of stay,and estimated costs of$10000to $40000per episode[1-4].Ventilator-associated pneumonia increases mortality in medical intensive care patients[5],in patients whose onset of VAP is after5days of mechanical ventilation[6],and in patients with VAP due to Pseudo-monas aeruginosa[7].Despite substantial efforts made to prevent VAP[8-10],the incidence and impact of VAP remain significant[3,11].One proposed mechanism for the development of VAP is leakage of colonized oropharyngeal secretions beyond the endotracheal tube(ETT)cuff into the lower respiratory tract [12-14].Conventional ETTs use a high-volume,low-pressure polyvinyl cuff that was developed to decrease mucosal damage and tracheal necrosis.To distribute cuff pressure over a large surface area,the diameter of the cuff is greater than tracheal diameter.However,this leads to the formation of channels created by folds in the cuff.At the recommended inflation pressure of20to30cm H20[15], oropharyngeal secretions easily leak through these channels into the lower airway[14].Several ETTs have been designed to prevent passage of upper airway oropharyngeal secretions into the lower respiratory tract[16-20].Subglottic secretion drainage ETTs(SSD-ETTs)have been shown to be effective in decreasing VAP in patients requiring mechanical ventilation more than72hours[18,21-24];however,they have had limited utilization[25],ostensibly due to difficulty in accurately predicting appropriate patients for use,more intensive nursing needs associated with maintenance of the suction port,and higher expense[25,26].In addition,a study in sheep showed significant mucosal damage associated with the use of the SSD-ETT[27].Polyurethane cuffed ETTs(PUC-ETT)have been shown to decrease leakage of oropharyngeal secretions in vitro[12,16].This ETT cuff has a7-μm wall thickness, thinner than the usual50-μm thickness seen in polyvinyl chloride cuffed(PVC)tubes.Polyurethane cuffed ETT result in a tighter tracheal seal at cuff inflation pressures less than30cm H2O by minimizing the development of large cuff channels[12].Polyurethane cuffed ETT has been shown to decrease the incidence of VAP in small, single-unit studies with high baseline rates of VAP[16,17], but its effect on VAP when used in unselected patients, including emergently intubated patients,in routine care is not known.We studied the effect of replacing the conventional PVC-ETT with the PUC-ETT on the incidence of VAP in patients throughout our adult ICUs. We used2different control groups to overcome the weakness of pre-post study.First,we compared VAP rates with PUC-ETT with those of patients with PVC-ETT both before and after the PUC-ETT period.Second,we also used VAP rates among tracheostomy patients during the study period to control for synchronous other changes in ventilator care or hospital microbiology.2.Materials and methods2.1.Study location and patientsThis study was conducted at a single study site,the University of Michigan,University Hospital in Ann Arbor, MI,a university-affiliated teaching institution.During a27-month period,July2006to September2008,adult patients in ICUs intubated for mechanical ventilation with an ETT were eligible for this investigation.Data on patients with tracheostomy tubes receiving mechanical ventilation were also collected to serve as an internal control population.The participating ICUs were the trauma-burn intensive care unit (TBICU;10beds),the cardiac intensive care unit(CICU;10 beds),the critical care medicine unit(CCMU;20beds),the neurointensive care unit(NICU;10beds,increased to15beds during the study period),and the surgical intensive care unit (SICU;20beds).During the intervention year,1ICU,the thoracic ICU,moved into a building of new construction and more than doubled in size,from10to24beds.Due to major changes in staffing,staff education,and logistics,patients in this ICU were excluded from analysis.The characteristics of each included ICU are summarized in Table1.This study was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board,as a retrospectively analyzed quality improvement project after a change in equipment.2.2.InterventionIn July2007,we replaced our conventional PVC-ETT with a PUC-ETT(Microcuff;Kimberly Clark Corporation, Rosewell,Ga)throughout our adult academic institution for 1year(July2007-June2008).These tubes were provided free of charge from the company.In July2008,our institution returned to the use of conventional PVC-ETTs in anticipation of internal analysis of effectiveness and cost.2.3.Data collection and definitionsData regarding hospital-acquired infections are routinely prospectively collected by professionals in the Department of Infection Control and Epidemiology on all patients within our institution for internal quality assurance.A diagnosis of VAP is made if the patient has been intubated at least48hours and meets our institution's clinical or microbiologic criteria,based on the standard National Healthcare Safety Network(NHSN)definition(see Appen-dix Figure1).In our study,only the first diagnosis of VAP was included;patient days subsequent to first diagnosis ofler et al.VAP were excluded from consideration.In addition,for the purposes of this study,in cases where a patient underwent tracheostomy and was subsequently diagnosed with VAP, these episodes were included in the analysis if the VAP diagnosis occurred within48hours of tracheostomy, thereby attributing the pneumonia to the ETT.Rates of VAP were calculated per unit per1000ventilator days at risk.This data was routinely prospectively collected and diagnoses were made during the study period independently from our investigation.We then retrospectively evaluated data for the year before the intervention,designated as the baseline year(July2006–June2007);the intervention year (July2007–June2008);and the first quarter after the intervention(July2008–September2008).In the absence of a randomly assigned control group,we also collected data on mechanically ventilated tracheostomy patients as a potential reflection of hospital acquired infection rates and infection control practices throughout the hospital during the study period.Our institution participates in the Michigan Health and Hospital Association Keystone ICU initiative,which involves multiple institutions throughout the state.This collaboration is an ongoing patient safety and quality improvement initiative aimed at decreasing nosocomial infections and improving outcomes through the use of multidisciplinary bundled interventions[28].The bundle for mechanically ventilated patients includes elevation of the head of the bed,daily interruption of sedation,stress ulcer prophylaxis,and deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis.The bundle was implemented institution-wide early in2006.No new recommendations for the care of mechanically ventilated patients to decrease the rate of VAP were made by the Michigan Health and Hospital Association Keystone ICU during the entire observation period.Data collected internally for quality assurance purposes show similar high rates of bundle compliance before,during,and after the study period.(data not shown).Because of the addition of an oral care intervention to the mechanical ventilation bundle in several ICUs beginning in October2008,we were unable to extend the period of observation beyond September2008.2.4.Statistical analysisUsing interrupted time-series methodology,we compared rates of VAP for the year before intervention,the year of intervention,and the first quarter after return to the conventional ETT.The rate of tracheostomy-associated VAP was calculated and compared for the year before intervention,the year of intervention,and the first quarter after the year of intervention.Unadjusted analyses were calculated as incidence rate ratios,taking into account differences between units using Mantel-Haenszel weights.To adjust for temporal trends in other infection control processes throughout the hospital,we also adjusted for contemporaneous rates of VAP among patients with a tracheostomy using Poisson regression with a unit-level random effect.We tested for,and found no evidence of,overdispersion that would require use of negative binomial regression.As a sensitivity test,we also compared the effectiveness of the PUC-ETT using a linear time trend and found efficacy estimates substantively identical to those obtained with the tracheostomy-VAP control(data not shown).All statistical analyses were done using Stata9.2 (StataCorp LP,College Station,Tex).3.ResultsBetween July2006and September2008,there were3207 patients intubated for mechanical ventilation within our5 ICUs,for a total of16223ventilator days.During the same time period,there were674patients receiving mechanical ventilation via a tracheostomy tube,for a total of8869 ventilator days.During the intervention year,there were50patients intubated with a conventional PVC-ETT,for a total of313 ventilator days.These PVC-ETTs were associated with2 episodes of VAP,an incidence of4%and a rate of6.3per 1000ventilator days.The use of conventional ETT during the intervention year was most often due to patient transfer from an outside institution,although occasionally,it was aTable1Unit characteristicsType of patients July2006–June2007July2007–June2008July2008–September2008No.of beds Ventilatorutilization(%)No.of beds Ventilatorutilization(%)No.of beds Ventilatorutilization(%)TBICU General surgery,trauma,burn1040.51042.81034.3 CICU Medical cardiac care1024.11033.71022.9 CCMU Medical intensive care2056.02063.12060.9 NICU Neurology and neurosurgery1019.31521.31521.1 SICU Surgery2039.32041.72037.7 Total7039.17543.17538.2 Ventilator utilization was calculated as a number of ventilator days per number of patient days×100%.3PUC-ETT and ventilator-associated pneumoniaresult of the presence of old PVC-ETT stock in airway intubation kits within the study hospital.These patients were included in our calculations as an intention-to-treat analysis.During the baseline year,there were37episodes of VAP among patients with ETTs,for a rate of5.3/1000ventilator days.During the intervention year,there were21episodes of ETT-associated VAP in7545ventilator days,a rate of2.8/ 1000ventilator days(P=.0138).After return to the use of the conventional ETT,there were6episodes of VAP associated with ETTs in1712ventilator days,for a rate of 3.5/1000ventilator days for the3-month interval.For unadjusted analyses,we combined the baseline year and the3months after return to the conventional PVC-ETT because there was no statistically significant difference in rates of VAP(P=.3343).The incidence risk ratio of VAP during the intervention year was0.572(P=.027,95% confidence interval[CI],0.340-0.963),equivalent to a relative risk reduction of42.8%(95%CI,3.7%-66%).The results are summarized in Table2.To adjust for any unmeasured variations in clinical care which may have occurred during the study period,such as better hand washing,which might have confounded these results,we compared the rate of VAP associated with tracheostomy during the same time periods.During the baseline year,there were27episodes of VAP in3,462 tracheostomy/ventilator days,a rate of7.8/1000ventilator days.During the intervention year,there were26episodes of VAP in4395ventilator days,a rate of5.9/1000ventilator days.In the3months after the intervention year,4episodes of VAP were observed in1012ventilator days,an incidence of4.5%and a rate of4.0/1000ventilator days.There were no changes in the tracheostomy tubes or ventilator care protocols used by our institution during the study time period;however,there were several initiatives promoting hand washing which were ongoing during this time.When controlling for the incidence of VAP in tracheostomy patients and controlling for unit-level effects in a Poisson regression,the incidence risk ratio of VAP in patients intubated with PUC-ETT was0.565(P=.032;95%CI,0.335-0.953),a43.5%reduction in the incidence of VAP compared with the combined baseline year and3month postintervention period when returning to PVC-ETT use.4.DiscussionWe found that the use of the PUC-ETT was associated with a clinically and statistically significant decreased rate of VAP when compared with a period when PVC-ETTs were used at our institution,using a preanalysis/postanalysis.The decrease in VAP was present in2distinct analyses:a control/ treat/control time series,and relative to time-matched tracheostomy controls.The decrease was both clinically and statistically significant and occurred at an institution with already-established VAP prevention policies.Two earlier studies evaluating the clinical use of the PUC-ETT[16,17]showed a significant decrease in the rate of VAP with the use of the PUC-ETT.Although both studies were randomized controlled trials,they were both single-unit studies with a high baseline VAP rate.One study[17], conducted in a postsurgical cardiac unit,had a control group with a42%VAP rate.A second trial using a PUC-ETT[16] found a rate of VAP in the control group of22.1%.In addition,the ETT tube used in this second study also included SSD,therefore the observation of VAP reduction may not necessarily be attributable to the PUC component. The presence of high background occurrence rates of VAP in a small sample size may limit generalizability of these studies[29].Although VAP rates vary between institutions and units, large multicenter studies have estimated the incidence of VAP to be9%to10%.[3,11]In addition,the NHSN System in its data summary for2006reported a composite VAP rate of4.3/1000ventilator days[29].The NHSN rate may be lower than the true national rate because participating hospitals likely represent a cohort of hospitals with increased motivation to decrease nosocomial infections.Our baseline rate of VAP during the study period(5.3/1000ventilatorTable2ETT-associated VAPNon–PUC-ETT PUC-ETT IRR95%CINo.of VAPs No.ofventilatordaysVAP rate(per1000ventilator days)No.of VAPs No.ofventilatordaysVAP rate(per1000ventilator days)TBICU12105011.46925 6.5.5680.175-1.634 CICU3968 3.121025 2.0.6290.052-5.496 CCMU183595 5.092782 3.2.6460.255-1.515 NICU3693 4.31722 1.4.3200.006-3.985 SICU72396 2.932091 1.4.4910.082-2.151 Total438678 5.0217545 2.8.572⁎0.340-0.963 IRR indicates incidence risk ratio;ns,not significant.⁎P=.027,individual unit P-values N.05.ler et al.days)is similar to the NHSN rate at the time and likely reflects infection control practices at least as effective as the national average.Although the preintervention/postintervention approach used by this study lacks the benefits of a randomized controlled trial,our unselected patient population is a more general reflection of critically ill patients than subjects enrolled in randomized controlled trials.In particular, existing randomized controlled trials of PUC-ETT may have introduced a selection bias because they required individual-level informed consent before intubation,poten-tially excluding many emergent intubations[30].Patients undergoing emergent intubation have been shown to have a greater risk of subsequent pulmonary infection[31]and represent a patient population not usually studied in VAP prevention trials involving novel ETTs.One weakness of an observational study design such as ours is the possibility that some other change in clinical practice accounted for or contributed to the decrease seen in VAP during the intervention period.The introduction of PUC-ETT in our hospital was a quality improvement effort that we retrospectively analyzed to produce generalizable knowledge.Although VAP rates in the first quarter after return to the PVC-ETT did not differ significantly from the initial baseline VAP rates,there was a point estimate with lower rates in this final quarter.We suspect that this decrease is related to an institution-wide campaign to improve hand washing technique and compliance which spanned the study period.In an attempt to control for the possibility of changes in the care of mechanically ventilated patients by nurses or respiratory therapists accounting for the decrease seen in VAP during the intervention period,we calculated the rate of VAP in mechanically ventilated tracheostomy patients during these same time periods.We did note a steady decrease in VAP rates in tracheostomy patients during the study period.However,in comparison between the2groups, the decrease in the likelihood of VAP in patients intubated with the PUC-ETT remained significant.Although we cannot exclude the possibility that the decrease in VAP among the PUC-ETT population was attributable to some other unrecognized variable,such a variable would have to have been uniquely applicable to PUC-ETT patients and not the tracheostomy patients.In addition,this variable would have to have been both introduced and removed at the same time as the PUC-ETT.Our study has other limitations.We were unable to examine any difference in tube failure rates between the PVC-ETT and PUC-ETT due to limitations in our data collection.As reintubation increases the risk of VAP[32],we cannot exclude the possibility that the differences seen in VAP rate were accounted for by a lower rate of tube failure in the PUC-ETT group,or simply a lower rate of reintubation during the intervention period.This seems unlikely because an earlier study[16]documented no difference in reintuba-tion with the PUC-ETT compared with the control PVC-ETT,and our clinical practice regarding weaning and extubation did not change during the intervention period. In addition,although our study was performed in a single center,we believe that our results are generalizable because it was conducted in an array of ICUs with a varied patient population.As must be considered in the adoption of any infection control measure,comparative cost-effectiveness of widespread use of the PUC-ETT must be weighed against costs and effectiveness of other preventative measures on a hospital-by-hospital basis.5.ConclusionsVentilator-associated pneumonia remains a significant cause of morbidity and increased health care costs.The PUC-ETT represents a simple intervention that can be rapidly introduced hospital-wise with no increase in personnel requirements and seems to be associated with a significantly decreased rate of VAP.AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Dr Benrong Chen for his assistance with the statistical analysis.5PUC-ETT and ventilator-associated pneumoniaAppendix A.Figure1ler et al.References[1]Baker AM,Meredith JW,Haponik EF.Pneumonia in intubated traumapatients.Microbiology and outcomes.Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153:343-9.[2]Cook DJ,Walter SD,Cook RJ,et al.Incidence of and risk factors forventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients.Ann Int Med 1998;129:433-40.[3]Rello J,Ollendorf DA,Oster G,et al.Epidemiology and outcomes ofventilator-associated pneumonia in a large US database.Chest 2002;122:2115-21.[4]Safdar N,Crnich CJ,Maki DG.The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia:its relevance to developing effective strategies for prevention.Respiratory Care2005;50:725-39[discussion739].[5]Heyland DK,Cook DJ,Griffith L,et al.The attributable morbidity andmortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient.The Canadian Critical Trials Group.Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:1249-56.[6]Vallés J,Pobo A,García-Esquirol O,et al.Excess ICU mortalityattributable to ventilator-associated pneumonia:the role of early vs late onset.Intensive Care Med2007;33:1363-8.[7]Crouch Brewer S,Wunderink RG,Jones CB,et al.Ventilator-associated pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Chest 1996;109:1019-29.[8]Collard HR,Saint S,Matthay MA.Prevention of ventilator-associatedpneumonia:an evidence-based systematic review.Ann Int Med 2003;138:494-501.[9]Lorente L,Blot S,Rello J.Evidence on measures for the prevention ofventilator-associated pneumonia.Eur Respir J2007;30:1193-207. [10]Muscedere J,Dodek P,Keenan S,et prehensive evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for ventilator-associated pneumonia: prevention.J Crit Care2008;23:126-37.[11]Chastre J,Fagon JY.Ventilator-associated pneumonia.Am J RespirCrit Care Med2002;165:867-903.[12]Dullenkopf A,Gerber A,Weiss M.Fluid leakage past tracheal tubecuffs:evaluation of the new Microcuff endotracheal tube.Intensive Care Med2003;29:1849-53.[13]Oikkonen M,Aromaa U.Leakage of fluid around low-pressuretracheal tube cuffs.Anaesthesia1997;52:567-9.[14]Young PJ,Rollinson M,Downward G,et al.Leakage of fluid past thetracheal tube cuff in a benchtop model.Br J Anaesth1997;78:557-62.[15]Seegobin RD,van Hasselt GL.Endotracheal cuff pressure and trachealmucosal blood flow:endoscopic study of effects of four large volume cuffs.BMJ1984;288:965-8[Clinical research ed1981].[16]Lorente L,Lecuona M,Jiménez A,et al.Influence of an endotrachealtube with polyurethane cuff and subglottic secretion drainage on pneumonia.Am J Respir Crit Care Med2007;176:1079-83.[17]Poelaert J,Depuydt P,De Wolf A,et al.Polyurethane cuffedendotracheal tubes to prevent early postoperative pneumonia aftercardiac surgery:a pilot study.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2008;135: 771-6.[18]Vallés J,Artigas A,Rello J,et al.Continuous aspiration of subglotticsecretions in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia.Ann Int Med 1995;122:179-86.[19]Young PJ,Ridley SA,Downward G.Evaluation of a new design oftracheal tube cuff to prevent leakage of fluid to the lungs.Br J Anaesth 1998;80:796-9.[20]Zanella A,Cressoni M,Epp M,et al.A double-layer tracheal tube cuffdesigned to prevent leakage:a bench-top study.Intensive Care Med 2008;34:1145-9.[21]Dezfulian C,Shojania K,Collard HR,et al.Subglottic secretiondrainage for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia:a meta-analysis.Am J Med2005;118:11-8.[22]Kollef MH,Skubas NJ,Sundt TM.A randomized clinical trial ofcontinuous aspiration of subglottic secretions in cardiac surgery patients.Chest1999;116:1339-46.[23]Mahul P,Auboyer C,Jospe R,et al.Prevention of nosocomialpneumonia in intubated patients:respective role of mechanical subglottic secretions drainage and stress ulcer prophylaxis.Intensive Care Med1992;18:20-5.[24]Smulders K,van der Hoeven H,Weers-Pothoff I,et al.A randomizedclinical trial of intermittent subglottic secretion drainage in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.Chest2002;121:858-62.[25]Krein SL,Kowalski CP,Damschroder L,et al.Preventingventilator-associated pneumonia in the United States:a multicenter mixed-methods study.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2008;29: 933-40.[26]Girou E,Buu-Hoi A,Stephan F,et al.Airway colonisation in long-term mechanically ventilated patients.Effect of semi-recumbent position and continuous subglottic suctioning.Intensive Care Med 2004;30:225-33.[27]Berra L,De Marchi L,Panigada M,et al.Evaluation of continuousaspiration of subglottic secretion in an in vivo study.Crit Care Med 2004;32:2071-8.[28]Pronovost P,Berenholtz SM,Goeschel C,et al.Improving patientsafety in intensive care units in Michigan.J Crit Care2008;23: 207-21.[29]Edwards JR,Peterson KD,Andrus ML,et al.National HealthcareSafety Network(NHSN)Report,data summary for2006,issued June 2007.Am J Infect Control2007;35:290-301.[30]Kollef MH,Afessa B,Anzueto A,et al.Silver-coated endotrachealtubes and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia:the NA-SCENT randomized trial.JAMA2008;300:805-13.[31]Croce MA,Tolley EA,Fabian TC.A formula for prediction ofposttraumatic pneumonia based on early anatomic and physiologic parameters.J Trauma2003;54:724-9[discussion729].[32]Ibrahim EH,Tracy L,Hill C,et al.The occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a community hospital:risk factors and clinical outcomes.Chest2001;120:555-61.7PUC-ETT and ventilator-associated pneumonia。
经直肠超声引导前列腺穿刺活检:多少针及多少次最合适?

经直肠超声引导前列腺穿刺活检:多少针及多少次最合适?李秋洋【摘要】系统的前列腺穿刺活检方法的临床应用大大提高了医生诊断前列腺癌的能力.6针系统穿刺法已被临床广为接受.更多的扩大穿刺方法的提出和临床应用提高了前列腺癌的检出率.各家学者对穿刺点的选择提出了多种方案,但现阶段尚未形成一种标准的前列腺穿刺术式.本文对经直肠超声引导前列腺穿刺活检术的穿刺针数和重复穿刺活检进行回顾,探讨各种穿刺方法的临床应用价值.【期刊名称】《中国介入影像与治疗学》【年(卷),期】2010(007)005【总页数】4页(P583-586)【关键词】活组织检查;前列腺肿瘤【作者】李秋洋【作者单位】中国人民解放军总医院超声科,北京,100853【正文语种】中文【中图分类】R815%R737.25早期准确诊断前列腺癌可为治疗赢得时间。
以往直肠指检(digital rectal examination,DRE)指导下经会阴前列腺穿刺活检是临床确诊前列腺癌的主要方法。
作为定性诊断前列腺癌的重要手段之一,经直肠超声引导前列腺穿刺活检术操作简便、定位准确、对患者损伤小,已广泛应用于临床;结合前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)及DRE,可显著提高早期前列腺癌的检出率。
1 系统穿刺活检传统前列腺穿刺活检术只对DRE阳性的可疑部位进行穿刺,假阴性率高,临床已少用。
系统性穿刺活检是前列腺癌确诊及临床选择合理治疗方案的必要手段[1]。
目前穿刺点的选择有以下几种:1.1 6针穿刺活检 Hodge等[2]首先提出的经典6针前列腺穿刺活检术被认为是诊断前列腺癌标准的系统穿刺法,在端射式腔内探头引导下经直肠途径,在前列腺两侧旁正中线矢状切面尖部、中部和底部各穿刺一针,简便易行,并发症少。
国内学者[3-4]多采用此方案,而此后的各种系统穿刺法均以系统性6针穿刺法为基础增加穿刺针数。
约80%前列腺癌发生于外周带,为更好地取得前列腺周缘区组织,Stamey[5]结合前列腺的解剖分区[6],在研究根治性前列腺切除术标本的基础上提出外侧周缘区6针穿刺法,即在前列腺两侧旁正中线外侧矢状切面尖部、中部和底部各穿刺一针。
富马酸福莫特罗吸入溶液说明书

HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATIONThese highlights do not include all the information needed to use PERFOROMIST safely and effectively. See full prescribing information for PERFOROMIST.These highlights do not include all the information needed to use PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution safely and effectively. See full prescribing information for PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution. PERFOROMIST® (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation SolutionInitial U.S. Approval: 2001WARNING: ASTHMA-RELATED DEATHSee full prescribing information for complete boxed warning• Long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists (LABA) increase the risk of asthma-related death. (5.1)• A placebo-controlled study with another long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist (salmeterol) showed an increase in asthma-related deaths in patients receiving salmeterol. (5.1)• The finding of an increased risk of asthma-related death with salmeterol is considered a class effect of LABA, including formoterol, the active ingredient in PERFOROMIST. The safety and efficacy of PERFOROMIST in patients with asthma have not been established. All LABA, including PERFOROMIST, are contraindicated in patients with asthma without use of a long-term asthma control medication. (4, 5.1)INDICATIONS AND USAGEPERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist (beta2-agonist) indicated for:• Long-term, twice daily (morning and evening) administration in the maintenance treatment of bronchoconstriction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. (1.1)Important limitations of use:• PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is not indicated to treat acute deteriorations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (1.2, 5.2)• PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is not indicated to treat asthma. (1.2)DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATIONFor oral inhalation only.• One 20 mcg/2 mL vial every 12 hours (2)• For use with a standard jet nebulizer (with a facemask or mouthpiece) connected to an air compressor (2)DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHSInhalation Solution (unit dose vial for nebulization); 20 mcg/2 mL solution (3)CONTRAINDICATIONS• All LABA, including PERFOROMIST, are contraindicated in patients with asthma without use of a long-term asthma control medication. (4)WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS• Do not initiate PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in acutely deteriorating patients. (5.2)• Do not use for relief of acute symptoms. Concomitant short-acting beta2 agonists can be used as needed for acute relief. (5.2)• Do not exceed the recommended dose. Excessive use of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, or use in conjunction with other medications containing long-acting beta2-agonists, can result in clinically significant cardiovascular effects, and may be fatal. (5.3, 5.5)• Life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm can occur. Discontinue PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution immediately. (5.4)• Use with caution in patients with cardiovascular or convulsive disorders, thyrotoxicosis, or with sensitivity to sympathomimetic drugs. (5.6, 5.7)ADVERSE REACTIONSMost common adverse reactions (>2% and more common than placebo)are diarrhea, nausea, nasopharyngitis, dry mouth, vomiting, dizziness, and insomnia (6.2)To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Dey Pharma, L.P. at 1-800-429-7751 or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or / medwatch.To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Dey Pharma, LP at or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or /medwatchDRUG INTERACTIONS• Other adrenergic drugs may potentiate effect. Use with caution. (5.3, 7.1) • Xanthine derivatives, steroids, diuretics, or non-potassium sparing diuretics may potentiate hypokalemia or ECG changes. Use with caution. (5.7, 7.2, 7.3)• MAO inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants and drugs that prolong QTc interval may potentiate effect on the cardiovascular system. Use with extreme caution. (7.4)• Beta-blockers may decrease effectiveness. Use with caution and only when medically necessary. (7.5)See 17 for PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATION and the FDA-approved Medication GuideRevised: 05/2010FULL PRESCRIBING INFORMATION: CONTENTS *WARNING: ASTHMA-RELATED DEATH1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE1.1 Maintenance Treatment of COPD1.2 Important Limitations of Use2 DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS4 CONTRAINDICATIONS5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS5.1 Asthma-Related Deaths5.2 Deterioration of Disease and Acute Episodes5.3 Excessive Use and Use with Other Long-Acting Beta2-Agonists5.4 Paradoxical Bronchospasm5.5 Cardiovascular Effects5.6 Coexisting Conditions5.7 Hypokalemia and Hyperglycemia5.8 Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions6 ADVERSE REACTIONS6.1 Beta2-Agonist Adverse Reaction Profile6.2 Clinical Trials Experience6.3 Postmarketing Experience7 DRUG INTERACTIONS7.1 Adrenergic Drugs7.2 Xanthine Derivatives, Steroids, or Diuretics7.3 Non-potassium Sparing Diuretics7.4 MAO Inhibitors, Tricyclic Antidepressants, QTc Prolonging Drugs7.5 Beta-blockers8 USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS8.1 Pregnancy8.2 Labor and Delivery8.3 Nursing Mothers8.4 Pediatric Use8.5 Geriatric Use10 OVERDOSAGE11 DESCRIPTION12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY12.1 Mechanism of Action12.2 Pharmacodynamics12.3 Pharmacokinetics13 NONCLINICAL TOXICOLOGY13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility13.2 Animal Pharmacology14 CLINICAL STUDIES14.1 Adult COPD Trial16 HOW SUPPLIED/STORAGE AND HANDLING17 PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATION* Sections or subsections omitted from the full prescribing information are not listedFULL PRESCRIBING INFORMATIONWARNING: ASTHMA-RELATED DEATHLong-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists (LABA) increase the risk of asthma-related death. Data from a large placebo-controlled US study that compared the safety of another long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist (salmeterol) or placebo added to usual asthma therapy showed an increase in asthma-related deaths in patients receiving salmeterol. This finding with salmeterol is considered a class effect of LABA, including formoterol, the active ingredient in PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution. The safety and efficacy of PERFOROMIST in patients with asthma have not been established. All LABA, including PERFOROMIST, are contraindicated in patients with asthma without use of a long-term asthma control medication [see CONTRAINDICATION (4), WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS (5.1)].1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE1.1 Maintenance Treatment of COPDPERFOROMIST (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation Solution is indicated for the long-term, twice daily (morning and evening) administration in the maintenance treatment of bronchoconstriction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including chronic bronchitis and emphysema.1.2 Important Limitations of UsePERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is not indicated to treat acute deteriorations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS (5.2)].PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is not indicated to treat asthma. The safety and effectiveness of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in asthma have not been established.2 DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATIONThe recommended dose of PERFOROMIST (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation Solution is one 20 mcg unit-dose vial administered twice daily (morning and evening) by nebulization. A total daily dose greater than 40 mcg is not recommended. PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should be administered by the orally inhaled route via a standard jet nebulizer connected toan air compressor. The safety and efficacy of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution have been established in clinical trials when administered using the PARI-LC Plus® nebulizer (with a facemask or mouthpiece) and the PRONEB® Ultra compressor. The safety and efficacy of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution delivered from non-compressor based nebulizer systems have not been established.PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should always be stored in the foil pouch, and only removed IMMEDIATELY BEFORE USE. Contents of any partially used container should be discarded.If the recommended maintenance treatment regimen fails to provide the usual response, medical advice should be sought immediately, as this is often a sign of destabilization of COPD. Under these circumstances, the therapeutic regimen should be re-evaluated and additional therapeutic options should be considered.The drug compatibility (physical and chemical), efficacy, and safety of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution when mixed with other drugs in a nebulizer have not been established.3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHSPERFOROMIST (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation Solution is supplied as a sterile solution for nebulization in low-density polyethylene unit-dose vials. Each vial contains formoterol fumarate dihydrate, USP equivalent to 20 mcg/2 mL of formoterol fumarate.4 CONTRAINDICATIONSAll LABA, including PERFOROMIST, are contraindicated in patients with asthma without use of a long-term asthma control medication. [see WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS (5.1)].5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS5.1 Asthma-Related Deaths[See BOXED WARNING]Data from a large placebo-controlled study in asthma patients showed that long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists may increase the risk of asthma-related death. Data are not available to determine whether the rate of death in patients with COPD is increased by long- acting beta2-adrenergic agonists.A 28-week, placebo-controlled US study comparing the safety of salmeterol with placebo, each added to usual asthma therapy, showed an increase in asthma-related deaths in patients receiving salmeterol (13/13,176 in patients treated with salmeterol vs.3/13,179 in patients treated with placebo; RR 4.37, 95% CI 1.25, 15.34). The increased risk of asthma-related death is considereda class effect of the long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists, including PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution. No study adequateto determine whether the rate of asthma related death is increased in patients treated with PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solutionhas been conducted. The safety and efficacy of PERFOROMIST in patients with asthma have not been established. All LABA, including PERFOROMIST, are contraindicated in patients with asthma without use of a long-term asthma control medication. [see CONTRAINDICATIONS (4)].Clinical studies with formoterol fumarate administered as a dry powder inhaler suggested a higher incidence of serious asthma exacerbations in patients who received formoterol than in those who received placebo. The sizes of these studies were not adequate to precisely quantify the differences in serious asthma exacerbation rates between treatment groups.5.2 Deterioration of Disease and Acute EpisodesPERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should not be initiated in patients with acutely deteriorating COPD, which may be a life-threatening condition. PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution has not been studied in patients with acutely deteriorating COPD. The use of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in this setting is inappropriate.PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should not be used for the relief of acute symptoms, i.e., as rescue therapy for the treatment of acute episodes of bronchospasm. PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution has not been studied in the relief of acute symptoms and extra doses should not be used for that purpose. Acute symptoms should be treated with an inhaled short-acting beta2-agonist.When beginning PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, patients who have been taking inhaled, short-acting beta2-agonists on a regular basis (e.g., four times a day) should be instructed to discontinue the regular use of these drugs and use them only for symptomatic relief of acute respiratory symptoms. When prescribing PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, the healthcare provider should also prescribe an inhaled, short-acting beta2-agonist and instruct the patient how it should be used. Increasing inhaled beta2-agonist useis a signal of deteriorating disease for which prompt medical attention is indicated. COPD may deteriorate acutely over a periodof hours or chronically over several days or longer. If PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution no longer controls the symptoms of bronchoconstriction, or the patient’s inhaled, short-acting beta2-agonist becomes less effective or the patient needs more inhalation of short-acting beta2-agonist than usual, these may be markers of deterioration of disease. In this setting, a re-evaluation of the patient and the COPD treatment regimen should be undertaken at once. Increasing the daily dosage of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution beyond the recommended 20 mcg twice daily dose is not appropriate in this situation.5.3 Excessive Use and Use with Other Long-Acting Beta2-AgonistsAs with other inhaled beta2-adrenergic drugs, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should not be used more often, at higherdoses than recommended, or in conjunction with other medications containing long-acting beta2-agonists, as an overdose may result. Clinically significant cardiovascular effects and fatalities have been reported in association with excessive use of inhaled sympathomimetic drugs.5.4 Paradoxical BronchospasmAs with other inhaled beta2-agonists, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution can produce paradoxical bronchospasm that may be life-threatening. If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should be discontinued immediately and alternative therapy instituted.5.5 Cardiovascular EffectsPERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, like other beta2-agonists, can produce a clinically significant cardiovascular effect in some patients as measured by increases in pulse rate, systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, and/or symptoms. If such effects occur, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution may need to be discontinued. In addition, beta-agonists have been reported to produce ECG changes, such as flattening of the T wave, prolongation of the QTc interval, and ST segment depression. The clinical significance of these findings is unknown. Therefore, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, like other sympathomimetic amines, should be used with caution in patients with cardiovascular disorders, especially coronary insufficiency, cardiac arrhythmias, and hypertension.5.6 Coexisting ConditionsPERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, like other sympathomimetic amines, should be used with caution in patients with convulsive disorders or thyrotoxicosis, and in patients who are unusually responsive to sympathomimetic amines. Doses of the related beta2 agonist albuterol, when administered intravenously, have been reported to aggravate preexisting diabetes mellitus and ketoacidosis.5.7 Hypokalemia and HyperglycemiaBeta-agonist medications may produce significant hypokalemia in some patients, possibly through intracellular shunting, which has the potential to produce adverse cardiovascular effects [see CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY (12.2)]. The decrease in serum potassium is usually transient, not requiring supplementation. Beta-agonist medications may produce transient hyperglycemia in some patients. Clinically significant changes in serum potassium and blood glucose were infrequent during clinical studies with long-term administration of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution at the recommended dose.5.8 Immediate Hypersensitivity ReactionsImmediate hypersensitivity reactions may occur after administration of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution, as demonstrated by cases of anaphylactic reactions, urticaria, angiodema, rash, and bronchospasm.6 ADVERSE REACTIONSLong acting beta2-adrenergic agonists such as formoterol increase the risk of asthma-related death [See BOXED WARNING and WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS (5.1)].6.1 Beta2-Agonist Adverse Reaction ProfileAdverse reactions to PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution are expected to be similar in nature to other beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists including: angina, hypertension or hypotension, tachycardia, arrhythmias, nervousness, headache, tremor, dry mouth, muscle cramps, palpitations, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, malaise, insomnia, hypokalemia, hyperglycemia, and metabolic acidosis.6.2 Clinical Trials ExperienceBecause clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not reflect the rates observed in practice.Adults with COPDThe data described below reflect exposure to PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution 20 mcg twice daily by oral inhalation in 586 patients, including 232 exposed for 6 months and 155 exposed for at least 1 year. PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution was studied in a 12-week, placebo-and active-controlled trial (123 subjects treated with PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution) and a 52-week, active-controlled trial (463 subjects treated with PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution). Patients were mostly Caucasians (88%) between40-90 years old (mean, 64 years old) and had COPD, with a mean FEV1 of 1.33 L. Patients with significant concurrent cardiac and other medical diseases were excluded from the trials.Table 1 shows adverse reactions from the 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial where the frequency was greater than or equal to 2% in the PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution group and where the rate in the PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution group exceeded the rate in the placebo group. In this trial, the frequency of patients experiencing cardiovascular adverse events was 4.1% for PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution and 4.4% for placebo. There were no frequently occurring specific cardiovascular adverse events for PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution (frequency greater than or equal to 1% and greater than placebo). The rate of COPD exacerbations was 4.1% for PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution and 7.9% for placebo.TABLE 1Number of patients with adverse reactions in the 12-week multiple-dose controlled clinical trial Adverse Reaction PERFOROMIST PlaceboInhalationSolution20 mcgn (%) n (%) Total Patients 123 (100) 114 (100)Diarrhea 6 (4.9) 4 (3.5)Nausea 6 (4.9) 3 (2.6) Nasopharyngitis 4 (3.3) 2 (1.8)Dry Mouth 4 (3.3) 2 (1.8)Vomiting 3 (2.4) 2 (1.8)Dizziness 3 (2.4) 1 (0.9)Insomnia 3 (2.4) 0 0 Patients treated with PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution 20 mcg twice daily in the 52-week open-label trial did not experience an increase in specific clinically significant adverse events above the number expected based on the medical condition and age of the patients.6.3 Postmarketing ExperienceThe following adverse reactions have been reported during post-approval use of PERFOROMIST. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure.Anaphylactic reactions, urticaria, angioedema (presenting as face, lip, tongue, eye, pharyngeal, or mouth edema), rash, and bronchospasm.7 DRUG INTERACTIONS7.1 Adrenergic DrugsIf additional adrenergic drugs are to be administered by any route, they should be used with caution because the sympathetic effects of formoterol may be potentiated [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS (5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7)].7.2 Xanthine Derivatives, Steroids, or DiureticsConcomitant treatment with xanthine derivatives, steroids, or diuretics may potentiate any hypokalemic effect of adrenergic agonists [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS (5.7)].7.3 Non-potassium Sparing DiureticsThe ECG changes and/or hypokalemia that may result from the administration of non-potassium sparing diuretics (such as loop or thiazide diuretics) can be acutely worsened by beta-agonists, especially when the recommended dose of the beta-agonist is exceeded. Although the clinical significance of these effects is not known, caution is advised in the co-administration of beta-agonists with non-potassium sparing diuretics.7.4 MAO Inhibitors, Tricyclic Antidepressants, QTc Prolonging DrugsFormoterol, as with other beta2-agonists, should be administered with extreme caution to patients being treated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, or drugs known to prolong the QTc interval because the effect of adrenergic agonists on the cardiovascular system may be potentiated by these agents. Drugs that are known to prolong the QTc interval have an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias.7.5 Beta-blockersBeta-adrenergic receptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and formoterol may inhibit the effect of each other when administered concurrently. Beta-blockers not only block the therapeutic effects of beta-agonists, but may produce severe bronchospasm in COPD patients. Therefore, patients with COPD should not normally be treated with beta-blockers. However, under certain circumstances, e.g., as prophylaxis after myocardial infarction, there may be no acceptable alternatives to the use of beta-blockers in patients with COPD. In this setting, cardioselective beta-blockers could be considered, although they should be administered with caution.8 USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS8.1 PregnancyTeratogenic Effects: Pregnancy Category CFormoterol fumarate administered throughout organogenesis did not cause malformations in rats or rabbits following oral administration. However, formoterol fumarate was found to be teratogenic in rats and rabbits in other testing laboratories. When given to rats throughout organogenesis, oral doses of 0.2 mg/kg (approximately 40 times the maximum recommended daily inhalation dose in humans on a mg/m2 basis) and above delayed ossification of the fetus, and doses of 6 mg/kg (approximately 1200 times the maximum recommended daily inhalation dose in humans on a mg/m2 basis) and above decreased fetal weight. Formoterol fumarate has been shown to cause stillbirth and neonatal mortality at oral doses of 6 mg/kg and above in rats receiving the drug during thelate stage of pregnancy. These effects, however, were not produced at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg. Because there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus.Women should be advised to contact their physician if they become pregnant while taking PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution.8.2 Labor and DeliveryThere are no adequate and well-controlled human studies that have investigated the effects of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution during labor and delivery.Because beta-agonists may potentially interfere with uterine contractility, PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should be used during labor only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk.8.3 Nursing MothersIn reproductive studies in rats, formoterol was excreted in the milk. It is not known whether formoterol is excreted in human milk, but because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised if PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is administered to nursing women. There are no well-controlled human studies of the use of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in nursing mothers. Women should be advised to contact their physician if they are nursing while taking PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution.8.4 Pediatric UsePERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is not indicated for use in children. The safety and effectiveness of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in pediatric patients have not been established. The pharmacokinetics of formoterol fumarate has not been studied in pediatric patients.8.5 Geriatric UseOf the 586 subjects who received PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in clinical studies, 284 were 65 years and over, while 89 were 75 years and over. Of the 123 subjects who received PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution in the 12-week safety and efficacy trial,48 (39%) were 65 years of age or older. No overall differences in safety or effectiveness were observed between these subjects and younger subjects. Other reported clinical experience has not identified differences in responses between the elderly and younger adult patients, but greater sensitivity of some older individuals cannot be ruled out.The pharmacokinetics of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution has not been studied in elderly subjects.10 OVERDOSAGEThe expected signs and symptoms with overdosage of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution are those of excessive beta-adrenergic stimulation and/or occurrence or exaggeration of any of the signs and symptoms listed under ADVERSE REACTIONS. Signs and symptoms may include angina, hypertension or hypotension, tachycardia with rates up to 200 beats/min, arrhythmias, nervousness, headache, tremor, seizures, muscle cramps, dry mouth, palpitation, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, malaise, insomnia, hyperglycemia, hypokalemia, and metabolic acidosis. As with all inhaled sympathomimetic medications, cardiac arrest and even death may be associated with an overdose of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution.Treatment of overdosage consists of discontinuation of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution together with institution of appropriate symptomatic and/or supportive therapy. The judicious use of a cardioselective beta-receptor blocker may be considered, bearingin mind that such medication can produce bronchospasm. There is insufficient evidence to determine if dialysis is beneficial for overdosage of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution. Cardiac monitoring is recommended in cases of overdosage.The minimum lethal inhalation dose of formoterol fumarate in rats is 156 mg/kg (approximately 32,000 times the maximum recommended daily inhalation dose in humans on a mg/m2 basis). The median lethal oral doses in Chinese hamsters, rats, and mice provide even higher multiples of the maximum recommended daily inhalation dose in humans.For additional information about overdose treatment, call a poison control center (1-800-222-1222).11 DESCRIPTIONPERFOROMIST (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation Solution is supplied as 2 mL of formoterol fumarate inhalation solution packaged in a 2.5 mL single-use low-density polyethylene vial and overwrapped in a foil pouch. Each vial contains 2 mL of a clear, colorless solution composed of formoterol fumarate dihydrate, USP equivalent to 20 mcg of formoterol fumarate in an isotonic, sterile aqueous solution containing sodium chloride, pH adjusted to 5.0 with citric acid and sodium citrate.The active component of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution is formoterol fumarate dihydrate, USP, a racemate. Formoterol fumarate dihydrate is a beta2-adrenergic bronchodilator. Its chemical name is (±)-2-hydroxy-5-[(1RS)-1-hydroxy-2-[[(1RS)-2-(4methoxyphenyl)-1-methylethyl]-amino]ethyl]formanilide fumarate dihydrate; its structural formula is:Formoterol fumarate dihydrate, USP has a molecular weight of 840.92 and its empirical formula is (C19H24N2O4)2•C4H4O4•2H2O. Formoterol fumarate dihydrate, USP is a white to yellowish crystalline powder, which is freely soluble in glacial acetic acid, soluble in methanol, sparingly soluble in ethanol and isopropanol, slightly soluble in water, and practically insoluble in acetone, ethyl acetate, and diethyl ether.PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution does not require dilution prior to administration by nebulization. Like all other nebulized treatments, the amount delivered to the lungs will depend on patient factors and the nebulization system used and its performance. Using the PARI-LC Plus® nebulizer (with a facemask or mouthpiece) connected to a PRONEB® Ultra compressor under in vitro conditions, the mean delivered dose from the mouthpiece was approximately 7.3 mcg (37% of label claim). The mean nebulizerflow rate was 4 LPM and the nebulization time was 9 minutes. PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution should be administered from a standard jet nebulizer at adequate flow rates via a facemask or mouthpiece.12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY12.1 Mechanism of ActionFormoterol fumarate is a long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonist (beta2-agonist). Inhaled formoterol fumarate acts locally in the lung as a bronchodilator. In vitro studies have shown that formoterol has more than 200-fold greater agonist activity at beta2-receptors than at beta1-receptors. Although beta2-receptors are the predominant adrenergic receptors in bronchial smooth muscle and beta1 receptors are the predominant receptors in the heart, there are also beta2-receptors in the human heart comprising 10% to 50% of the total beta-adrenergic receptors. The precise function of these receptors has not been established, but they raise the possibility that even highly selective beta2-agonists may have cardiac effects.The pharmacologic effects of beta2-adrenoceptor agonist drugs, including formoterol, are at least in part attributable to stimulationof intracellular adenyl cyclase, the enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to cyclic-3', 5'-adenosine monophosphate (cyclic AMP). Increased cyclic AMP levels cause relaxation of bronchial smooth muscle and inhibition of release of mediators of immediate hypersensitivity from cells, especially from mast cells.In vitro tests show that formoterol is an inhibitor of the release of mast cell mediators, such as histamine and leukotrienes, fromthe human lung. Formoterol also inhibits histamine-induced plasma albumin extravasation in anesthetized guinea pigs and inhibits allergen-induced eosinophil influx in dogs with airway hyper-responsiveness. The relevance of these in vitro and animal findings to humans with COPD is unknown.12.2 PharmacodynamicsSystemic Safety and Pharmacokinetic / Pharmacodynamic RelationshipsThe major adverse effects of inhaled beta2-agonists occur as a result of excessive activation of the systemic beta-adrenergic receptors. The most common adverse effects in adults include skeletal muscle tremor and cramps, insomnia, tachycardia, decreases in plasma potassium, and increases in plasma glucose.Changes in serum potassium and serum glucose were evaluated in 12 COPD patients following inhalation of single doses of PERFOROMIST Inhalation Solution containing 10, 20 and 244 mcg of formoterol fumarate (calculated on an anhydrous basis) in a crossover study. At 1 hour after treatment with formoterol fumarate inhalation solution, mean (± standard deviation) serum glucose rose 26 ± 30, 29 ± 28, and 38 ± 44 mg/dL, respectively, and was not significantly different from baseline or trough level at 24 hours post-dose. At 1 hour after dosing with formoterol fumarate inhalation solution 244 mcg, serum potassium fell by 0.68 ± 0.4 mEq/L, and was not different from baseline or trough level at 24 hours post-dose.。
机械通气临床应用指南(整理)

机械通气临床应用指南中华医学会重症医学分会(2006年)引言重症医学是研究危重病发生发展地规律,对危重病进行预防和治疗地临床学科.器官功能支持是重症医学临床实践地重要内容之一.机械通气从仅作为肺脏通气功能地支持治疗开始,经过多年来医学理论地发展及呼吸机技术地进步,已经成为涉及气体交换、呼吸做功、肺损伤、胸腔内器官压力及容积环境、循环功能等,可产生多方面影响地重要干预措施,并主要通过提高氧输送、肺脏保护、改善内环境等途径成为治疗多器官功能不全综合征地重要治疗手段.机械通气不仅可以根据是否建立人工气道分为“有创”或“无创”,因为呼吸机具有地不同呼吸模式而使通气有众多地选择,不同地疾病对机械通气提出了具有特异性地要求,医学理论地发展及循证医学数据地增加使对呼吸机地临床应用更加趋于有明确地针对性和规范性.在这种条件下,不难看出,对危重患者地机械通气制定规范有明确地必要性.同时,多年临床工作地积累和多中心临床研究证据为机械通气指南地制定提供了越来越充分地条件.中华医学会重症医学分会以循证医学地证据为基础,采用国际通用地方法,经过广泛征求意见和建议,反复认真讨论,达成关于机械通气临床应用方面地共识,以期对危重患者地机械通气地临床应用进行规范.重症医学分会今后还将根据医学证据地发展及新地共识对机械通气临床应用指南进行更新.指南中地推荐意见依据2001年ISF提出地Delphi分级标准(表1).指南涉及地文献按照研究方法和结果分成5个层次,推荐意见地推荐级别按照Delphi分级分为A~E级,其中A级为最高.表1 Delphi分级标准推荐级别A 至少有2项I级研究结果支持B 仅有1项I级研究结果支持C 仅有II级研究结果支持D 至少有1项III级研究结果支持E 仅有IV级或V研究结果支持研究课题分级I大样本,随机研究,结论确定,假阳性或假阴性错误地风险较低II小样本,随机研究,结论不确定,假阳性和/或假阴性地风险较高III非随机,同期对照研究IV非随机,历史对照研究和专家意见系列病例报道,非对照研究和专家意见一、危重症患者人工气道地选择人工气道是为了保证气道通畅而在生理气道与其他气源之间建立地连接,分为上人工气道和下人工气道,是呼吸系统危重症患者常见地抢救措施之一.上人工气道包括口咽气道和鼻咽气道,下人工气道包括气管插管和气管切开等.建立人工气道地目地是保持患者气道地通畅,有助于呼吸道分泌物地清除及进行机械通气.人工气道地应用指征取决于患者呼吸、循环和中枢神经系统功能状况.结合患者地病情及治疗需要选择适当地人工气道.(一) 建立人工气道1. 经口气管插管操作较易,插管地管径相对较大,便于气道内分泌物地清除,但影响会厌地功能,患者耐受性也较差.经口气管插管地关键在于暴露声门,在声门无法暴露地情况下,容易失败或出现并发症.经口气管插管适应征:①严重低氧血症或高碳酸血症,或其他原因需较长时间机械通气,又不考虑气管切开;②不能自主清除上呼吸道分泌物、胃内返流物或出血,有误吸危险;③下呼吸道分泌物过多或出血,且清除能力较差;④存在上呼吸道损伤、狭窄、阻塞、气管食道瘘等严重影响正常呼吸;⑤患者突然出现呼吸停止,需紧急建立人工气道进行机械通气. 禁忌征或相对禁忌征包括:①张口困难或口腔空间小,无法经口插管;②无法后仰(如疑有颈椎骨折).2.经鼻气管插管较易固定,舒适性优于经口气管插管,患者较易耐受,但管径较小,导致呼吸功增加,不利于气道及鼻窦分泌物地引流.经鼻气管插管适应征:除紧急抢救外,余同经口气管插管.经鼻气管插管禁忌征或相对禁忌征:①紧急抢救,特别是院前急救;②严重鼻或颌面骨折;③凝血功能障碍;④鼻或鼻咽部梗阻,如鼻中隔偏曲、息肉、囊肿、脓肿、水肿、异物、血肿等;⑤颅底骨折.与经口气管插管比较:经口气管插管减少了医院获得性鼻窦炎地发生,而医院获得性鼻窦炎与呼吸机相关性肺炎地发病有密切关系.因此,若短期内能脱离呼吸机地患者,应优先选择经口气管插管.但是,在经鼻气管插管技术操作熟练,或者患者不适于经口气管插管时,仍可以考虑先行经鼻气管插管.3.逆行气管插管术指先行环甲膜穿刺,送入导丝,将导丝经喉至口咽部,由口腔或鼻腔引出,再将气管导管沿导丝插入气管.逆行气管插管术适应征:因上呼吸道解剖因素或病理条件下,无法看到声带甚至会厌,无法完成经口或鼻气管插管.禁忌征:①甲状腺肿大,如甲亢或甲状腺癌等;②无法张口;③穿刺点肿瘤或感染;④严重凝血功能障碍;⑤不合作者.上人工气道包括口咽通气道和鼻咽通气道,有助于保持上呼吸道地通畅.前者适用:舌后坠而导致上呼吸道梗阻,癫痫大发作或阵发性抽搐,以及经口气管插管时,可在气管插管旁插入口咽气道,防止患者咬闭气管插管发生部分梗阻或窒息.鼻咽通气道仅适用因舌后坠导致地上呼吸道阻塞,此时需注意凝血功能障碍者地鼻咽出血.推荐意见1:机械通气患者建立人工气道可首选经口气管插管(推荐级别:D级)(二)气管切开地选择对于需要较长时间机械通气地患者,气管切开是常选择地人工气道方式.与其他人工气道比较,由于其管腔较大、导管较短,因而气道阻力及通气死腔较小,有利于气道分泌物地清除,减少呼吸机相关性肺炎地发生率.但是气管切开地时机仍有争议.1989年美国胸科医师协会建议:若预期机械通气时间在10天以内者优先选择气管插管,而超过21天者则优先选择气管切开术,在10至21天之间者则应每天对患者进行评估.这个建议并没有很强地研究结果支持,是建立在专家地经验之上.之后,有研究比较了“早期”和“晚期”气管切开,探讨“最佳”气管切开时机.研究发现[1],早期选择气管切开术,可以减少机械通气天数和ICU住院天数,减少呼吸机相关性肺炎地发生率,改善预后,这个观点尚需要大样本地RCT 研究.对于“早期”地确切定义尚未统一,早至气管插管后48小时内,晚至气管插管后两周内,多数是在气管插管后7天或7天以内.目前,越来越多地研究倾向无需到21天后,2周内可考虑气管切开[1].气管切开术适应征:①预期或需要较长时间机械通气治疗;②上呼吸道梗阻所致呼吸困难,如双侧声带麻痹、有颈部手术史、颈部放疗史;③反复误吸或下呼吸道分泌较多,患者气道清除能力差;④减少通气死腔,利于机械通气支持;⑤ 因喉部疾病致狭窄或阻塞无法气管插管;⑥头颈部大手术或严重创伤需行预防性气管切开,以保证呼吸道通畅.⑦高位颈椎损伤.气管切开术创伤较大,可发生切口出血或感染.以下情况气管切开应慎重:①切开部位地感染或化脓;②切开部位肿物,如巨大甲状腺肿、气管肿瘤等;③严重凝血功能障碍,如弥漫性血管内凝血、特发性血小板减少症等.经皮气管造口术(PCT)具有操作方法简单、快捷,手术创伤小等特点,临床研究表明,与气管切开术比较,有助于患者较早脱离呼吸机和减少ICU住院天数,以及减少并发症地发生率,但临床效果尚需进一步研究.推荐意见2:短期内不能撤除人工气道地患者应尽早选择或更换为气管切开(推荐级别:C 级)二、人工气道地管理机械通气地患者应通过各种指标及时评估气道内是否有分泌物,包括听诊呼吸音,在容量控制机械通气时气道峰压是否增加,在压力控制机械通气时潮气量是否减少,患者是否不能进行有效地咳嗽,气道内可否见到分泌物等,应通过气道吸引确保分泌物地充分引流[2]. (一)气囊压地监测高容低压套囊压力在25cmH2O-30cmH2O之间既可有效封闭气道,又不高于气管粘膜毛细血管灌注压,可预防气道粘膜缺血性损伤及气管食管瘘,拔管后气管狭窄等并发症.Granja在一项95人地前瞻临床实验中得出结论,认为每天3次监测套囊压可预防气道粘膜缺血性损伤和气管狭窄[4].要注意气道压对套囊封闭压地影响,Guyton所做地一项15例患者地前瞻临床实验表明即使正确充盈套囊,如果气道峰压过高仍可造成气道粘膜缺血性损伤[5].高容低压套囊不需要间断放气.推荐意见3:应常规监测人工气道地气囊压力(推荐级别:C级)(二)持续声门下吸引当使用带有侧孔地气管插管或气管切开套管时,可进行持续声门下吸引,以清除声门下至插管气囊之间地分泌物,又不损伤声带.在长期进行机械通气地患者中持续声门下吸引可延缓早发型呼吸机相关肺炎地发生,降低其发生率.Kollef地一项以343例心脏外科患者为对象地研究表明在进行机械通气地患者中行持续声门下吸引可降低呼吸机相关肺炎地发生率[6].另有多个临床随机对照实验表明持续声门下吸引可以降低并延缓通气机肺炎发生率,减少革兰氏阳性细菌及流感嗜血杆菌地感染[7-11].推荐意见4:有条件地情况下,建立人工气道地患者应进行持续声门下吸引(推荐级别B 级)(三)气道湿化机械通气时地气道湿化包括主动湿化和被动湿化.主动湿化指在呼吸机管路内应用加热湿化器进行呼吸气体地加温加湿(包括不含加热导线,含吸气管路加热导线,含吸气呼气双管路加热导线);被动湿化指应用人工鼻(热湿交换器型)吸收患者呼出气地热量和水份进行吸入气体地加温加湿.不论何种湿化,都要求近端气道内地气体温度达到37℃,相对湿度100%,以维持气道粘膜完整,纤毛正常运动及气道分泌物地排出,降低呼吸道感染地发生.人工鼻(热湿交换器型)可较好进行加温加湿,与加热型湿化器相比不增加堵塞呼吸机管路发生率,并可保持远端呼吸机管路地清洁,因能增加气道阻力、死腔容积及吸气做功,故不推荐在慢性呼衰尤其在撤机困难地患者使用[12,13];Kirton曾报道人工鼻(热湿交换器型)较加热型湿化器能减少院内获得性肺炎地发生[14],近年来多个随机对照临床实验得出结论人工鼻(热湿交换器型)与加热型湿化器比较在呼吸机相关肺炎地发生率上并无明显差异[15,16].有多个临床实验表明吸痰前滴入生理盐水进行气道湿化可使患者地血氧在吸痰后短期内明显下降,因此存在肺部感染地患者不推荐常规应用[17-22],可选择性应用痰液稀释.推荐意见5:机械通气时应实施气道湿化(推荐级别: C级)(四)呼吸机管路地更换不应以控制感染为目地常规更换通气机管路.现有证据提示较长时间更换管路并不增加VAP 地发生率,但关于管路使用地安全时间尚无定论.Graven 等[22]对24小时与48小时更换呼吸机管路进行比较,发现在吸气相气体培养或管道细菌定植培养均无差异.由Kollef和Hess等[23,24]两个多中心随机对照研究提出:48小时与七天更换管路比较,每七天更换与不更换均没有增加VAP发病率且可明显降低医疗费用.国内也有类似报道比较七天与一天对VAP发生率地影响,一致认为频繁更换管路会增加VAP地发生率.虽然管路中冷凝水与VAP 地关系缺乏证据,但应避免管路中聚积过多地冷凝水,更要避免过多地冷凝水流向患者气道或流入湿化罐,避免管路内被污染,一旦发现应及时清除.推荐意见6:呼吸机管路不必频繁更换,一旦污染则应及时更换.(推荐级别 B级)三、机械通气地目地和应用指征(一)目地机械通气地生理学作用[25,26]:提供一定水平地分钟通气量以改善肺泡通气;改善氧合;提供吸气末压(平台压)和呼气末正压(PEEP)以增加吸气末肺容积(EILV)和呼气末肺容积(EELV);对气道阻力较高和顺应性较低者,机械通气可降低呼吸功耗,缓解呼吸肌疲劳.因此,应用机械通气可达到以下临床目地[25,27]:1.纠正急性呼吸性酸中毒:通过改善肺泡通气使PaCO2和pH得以改善.通常应使PaCO2和pH维持在正常水平.对于慢性呼吸衰竭急性加重者(如COPD)应达到缓解期水平.对存在气压伤较高风险地患者,应适当控制气道压水平.2.纠正低氧血症:通过改善肺泡通气、提高吸入氧浓度、增加肺容积和减少呼吸功耗等手段以纠正低氧血症.机械通气改善氧合地基本目标是PaO2>60mmHg或SaO2>90%.动脉氧含量(CaO2)与PaO2和血红蛋白(HB)有关,而氧输送量(DO2)不但与CaO2有关,还与心输出量有关,因此,为了改善组织缺氧应考虑上述因素对DO2地影响.3.降低呼吸功耗,缓解呼吸肌疲劳:由于气道阻力增加、呼吸系统顺应性降低和内源性呼气末正压(PEEPi)地出现,呼吸功耗显著增加,严重者出现呼吸肌疲劳.对这类患者适时地使用机械通气可以减少呼吸肌做功,达到缓解呼吸肌疲劳地目地.4.防止肺不张:对于可能出现肺膨胀不全地患者(如术后胸腹活动受限、神经肌肉疾病等),机械通气可通过增加肺容积而预防和治疗肺不张.5.为安全使用镇静和肌松剂提供通气保障:对于需要抑制或完全消除自主呼吸地患者,如接受手术或某些特殊操作者,呼吸机可为使用镇静和肌松剂提供通气保障.6.稳定胸壁:在某些情况下(如肺叶切除、连枷胸等),由于胸壁完整性受到破坏,通气功能严重受损,此时机械通气可通过机械性地扩张使胸壁稳定,以保证充分地通气.(二)应用指征在出现较为严重地呼吸功能障碍时,应使用机械通气.如果延迟实施机械通气,患者因严重低氧和CO2潴留而出现多脏器功能受损,机械通气地疗效显著降低.因此,机械通气宜早实施.符合下述条件应实施机械通气:经积极治疗后病情仍继续恶化;意识障碍;呼吸形式严重异常,如呼吸频率>35~40次/分或<6~8次/分,呼吸节律异常,自主呼吸微弱或消失;血气分析提示严重通气和/或氧合障碍:PaO2<50mmHg,尤其是充分氧疗后仍<50mmHg;PaCO2进行性升高,pH动态下降.下述情况机械通气时可能使病情加重:如气胸及纵隔气肿未行引流,肺大疱和肺囊肿,低血容量性休克未补充血容量,严重肺出血,气管-食管瘘等.但在出现致命性通气和氧合障碍时,应积极处理原发病(如尽快行胸腔闭式引流,积极补充血容量等),同时不失时机地应用机械通气.四、无创正压通气(NPPV)NPPV是指无需建立人工气道地正压通气,常通过鼻/面罩等方法连接患者.临床研究证明,在某些病例NPPV可以减少急性呼吸衰竭地气管插管或气管切开及相应地并发症,改善预后;减少慢性呼吸衰竭呼吸机地依赖,减少患者地痛苦和医疗费用,提高生活地质量. NPPV可以避免人工气道地不良反应和并发症(气道损伤、呼吸机相关性肺炎等),同时也不具有人工气道地一些作用(如气道引流、良好地气道密封性等).由于NPPV不可避免地存在或多或少地漏气,使得通气支持不能达到与IMV相同地水平,临床主要应用于意识状态较好地轻、中度地呼吸衰竭,或自主呼吸功能有所恢复、从IMV撤离地呼吸衰竭患者;而有意识障碍、有并发症或多器官功能损害地严重呼吸衰竭宜选择IMV.NPPV与IMV各自具有不同地适应证和临床地位,两者相互补充,而不是相互替代[28-30].(一)适应症和禁忌症适应症:患者出现较为严重地呼吸困难,动用辅助呼吸肌,常规氧疗方法(鼻导管和面罩)不能维持氧合或氧合障碍有恶化趋势时,应及时使用NPPV.但患者必须具备使用NPPV地基本条件:较好地意识状态、咳痰能力、自主呼吸能力、血流动力学稳定和良好地配合NPPV 地能力.禁忌症:意识障碍,呼吸微弱或停止,无力排痰,严重地脏器功能不全(上消化道大出血、血流动力学不稳定等),未经引流地气胸或纵隔气肿,严重腹胀,上气道或颌面部损伤/术后/畸形,不能配合NPPV或面罩不适等[31-33].(二)临床应用Girault等人总结2年应用NPPV地临床实践表明:64%地急性呼吸衰竭患者避免了气管插管,而NPPV失败后改用有创通气者,其死亡率仅为10.5%,因此NPPV可作为临床治疗急性呼吸衰竭地一线选择[34].但对于不同类型地急性呼吸衰竭,NPPV使用地支持证据不同.对于急性加重期COPD(AECOPD)、急性心源性肺水肿和免疫抑制患者,已有较多地RCT研究表明,较早地应用NPPV可降低这类患者地气管插管率和住院病死率.对于支气管哮喘持续状态、术后可能发生呼吸衰竭和拒绝插管者,仅有为数不多地研究表明NPPV可能对这些患者有效,部分患者有避免气管插管地可能,证据尚不充分,临床可以试用,不作为一线治疗手段.而对于肺炎和和ARDS,目前支持证据很有限,对于病情相对较轻者才可实验性使用,但须严密观察,一旦病情恶化,立即采取气管插管行有创通气治疗,以免延误病情[35-37]. 推荐意见7: NPPV可作为急性加重期COPD和急性心源性肺水肿患者地一线治疗手段.(推荐级别 A级)推荐意见8:合并免疫抑制地呼吸衰竭患者可首先试用NPPV.(推荐级别 B级)(三)呼吸机地选择要求能提供双水平正压通气模式,提供地吸气压力可达到20~30cmH2O,能满足患者吸气需求地高流量气体(>100L/min),具备一些基本地报警功能;若用于I型呼吸衰竭,要求能提供较高地吸氧浓度(>50%)和更高地流速需求.(四)连接方式应准备不同大小型号地鼻罩和口鼻面罩以供不同患者使用.鼻罩和口鼻面罩都能成功地用于急性呼吸衰竭地患者,在应用NPPV地初始阶段,口鼻面罩应首先考虑应用,患者病情改善24小时后还需较长时间应用者,NPPV可更换为鼻罩.(五)通气模式与参数调节持续气道正压和双水平正压通气是最常用地两种通气模式,后者最为常用.双水平正压通气有两种工作方式:自主呼吸通气模式(S模式,相当于PSV+PEEP)和后备控制通气模式(T 模式,相当于PCV+PEEP).因此,BiPAP地参数设置包括吸气压(IPAP),呼气压(EPAP)及后备控制通气频率.当自主呼吸间隔时间低于设定值(由后备频率决定)时,即处于S模式;自主呼吸间隔时间超过设定值时,即由S模式转向T模式,即启动时间切换地背景通气PCV.在ACPE患者首选CPAP,如果存在高碳酸血症或呼吸困难不缓解可考虑换用BiPAP. BiPAP参数调节原则:IPAP/EPAP均从较低水平开始,患者耐受后再逐渐上调,直到达满意地通气和氧合水平,或调至患者可能耐受地水平.BiPAP模式通气参数设置地常用参考值如下表所示[30].表2 双水平正压通气模式参数设置常用参考值参数常用值IPAP/潮气量 10~25cmH2O/7~15ml/kgEPAP 3~5cmH2O(Ⅰ型呼吸衰竭时用4~12cmH2O)后备频率(T模式) 10~20次/min吸气时间 0.8~1.2s(六)NPPV转换为有创通气地时机在应用NPPV过程中如何及时、准确地判断NPPV地效果,对于是继续应用NPPV,还是转换为IMV具有重要意义:一方面可以提高NPPV地有效性,又可避免延迟气管插管,从而提高NPPV地安全性.对于能够成功应用NPPV地患者地特征是:基础病情较轻,应用NPPV后血气能快速明显改善,呼吸频率下降.可能失败地相关因素为:较高地APACHE II评分,意识障碍或昏迷,对NPPV地初始治疗反应不明显,胸片提示肺炎,呼吸道分泌物很多,高龄,满口缺齿,营养不良等[30,33,37].推荐意见9:应用NPPV1~2小时(短期)病情不能改善应转为有创通气.(推荐级别 D级)五、机械通气地基本模式(一)分类1.“定容”型通气和“定压”型通气[38,39]①定容型通气:呼吸机以预设通气容量来管理通气,即呼吸机送气达预设容量后停止送气,依靠肺、胸廓地弹性回缩力被动呼气.常见地定容通气模式有容量控制通气、容量辅助-控制通气、间歇指令通气(IMV)和同步间歇指令通气(SIMV)等,也可将它们统称为容量预设型通气(volume preset ventilation, VPV).VPV能够保证潮气量地恒定,从而保障分钟通气量;VPV地吸气流速波形为恒流波形,即方波,不能适应患者地吸气需要,尤其存在自主呼吸地患者,这种人-机地不协调增加镇静剂和肌松剂地需要,并消耗很高地吸气功,从而诱发呼吸肌疲劳和呼吸困难;当肺顺应性较差或气道阻力增加时,使气道压过高.②定压型通气:呼吸机以预设气道压力来管理通气,即呼吸机送气达预设压力且吸气相维持该压力水平,而潮气量是由气道压力与PEEP之差及吸气时间决定,并受呼吸系统顺应性和气道阻力地影响.常见地定压型通气模式有压力控制通气(PCV)、压力辅助控制通气(P-ACV)、压力控制-同步间歇指令通气(PC-SIMV)、压力支持通气(PSV)等,统称为压力预设型通气(pressure preset ventilation,PPV)[40].PPV时潮气量随肺顺应性和气道阻力而改变;气道压力一般不会超过预置水平,利于限制过高地肺泡压和预防VILI;流速多为减速波,肺泡在吸气早期即充盈,利于肺内气体交换.2.控制通气和辅助通气[41]①控制通气(Controlled Ventilation,CV):呼吸机完全代替患者地自主呼吸,呼吸频率、潮气量、吸呼比、吸气流速,呼吸机提供全部地呼吸功.CV适用于严重呼吸抑制或伴呼吸暂停地患者,如麻醉、中枢神经系统功能障碍、神经肌肉疾病、药物过量等情况.在CV时可对患者呼吸力学进行监测时,如静态肺顺应性、内源性PEEP、阻力、肺机械参数监测.CV参数设置不当,可造成通气不足或过度通气;应用镇静剂或肌松剂将导致分泌物清除障碍等;长时间应用CV将导致呼吸肌萎缩或呼吸机依赖.故应用CV时应明确治疗目标和治疗终点,对一般地急性或慢性呼吸衰竭,只要患者条件许可宜尽早采用“辅助通气支持”.②辅助通气(Assisted Ventilation,AV)依靠患者地吸气努力触发呼吸机吸气活瓣实现通气,当存在自主呼吸时,根据气道内压力降低(压力触发)或气流(流速触发)地变化触发呼吸机送气,按预设地潮气量(定容)或吸气压力(定压)输送气体,呼吸功由患者和呼吸机共同完成.AV适用于呼吸中枢驱动正常地患者,通气时可减少或避免应用镇静剂,保留自主呼吸以减轻呼吸肌萎缩,改善机械通气对血流动力学地影响,利于撤机过程.(二)常用模式[42,43]1.辅助控制通气辅助控制通气(Assist-Control ventilation,ACV)是辅助通气(AV)和控制通气(CV)两种模式地结合,当患者自主呼吸频率低于预置频率或患者吸气努力不能触发呼吸机送气时,呼吸机即以预置地潮气量及通气频率进行正压通气,即CV;当患者地吸气能触发呼吸机时,以高于预置频率进行通气,即AV.ACV又分为压力辅助控制通气(P-ACV)和容量辅助控制通气(V-ACV).参数设置容量切换A-C:触发敏感度、潮气量、通气频率、吸气流速/流速波形压力切换A-C:触发敏感度、压力水平、吸气时间、通气频率特点:A-C为ICU患者机械通气地常用模式,通过设定地呼吸频率及潮气量(或压力),提供通气支持,使患者地呼吸肌得到地休息,CV确保最低地分钟通气量.随病情好转,逐步降低设置条件,允许患者自主呼吸,呼吸功由呼吸机和患者共同完成,呼吸机可与自主呼吸同步.2.同步间歇指令通气同步间歇指令通气( Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation,SIMV)是自主呼吸与控制通气相结合地呼吸模式,在触发窗内患者可触发和自主呼吸同步地指令正压通气,在两次指令通气之间触发窗外允许患者自主呼吸,指令呼吸是以预设容量(容量控制SIMV)或预设压力(压力控制SIMV)地形式送气.参数设置:潮气量、流速/吸气时间、控制频率、触发敏感度,当压力控制SIMV时需设置压。
超声评估膈肌功能对机械通气撤机预测的新进展

超声评估膈肌功能对机械通气撤机预测的新进展2皖南医学院弋矶山医院重症医学科,安徽芜湖 2410003皖南医学院弋矶山医院护理部,安徽芜湖 241000摘要:膈肌是人体最主要的呼吸肌,应用机械通气(mechanicalventilation,MV)可导致呼吸机相关性膈肌功能障碍。
超声膈肌功能的监测,具有无创、便携性、床旁可重复操作性等优势,近几年已被临床广泛应用。
通过监测膈肌位移、膈肌厚度、膈肌增厚分数、膈肌收缩速度、膈肌位移-时间指数等指标对膈肌的结构和功能进行评估。
起到对患者进行机械控制通气的撤离以及结局的预测的作用,为机械通气患者提供可靠的撤机评估标准。
关键词:超声;膈肌;机械通气;撤机机械通气是重症监护病房(ICU)最重要的生命维持方法,在整个机械通气过程中,约40%-60%的时间在为撤机作准备[1]。
撤机失败过早会导致二次气管插管及机械通气反复应用等[2],撤机延迟会导致呼吸机相关性肺炎、呼吸机相关性膈肌功能障碍及增加患者经济负担和病死率增加等[3]。
因此,选择一个合适的撤机时机很重要。
自主呼吸试验(spontaneousbreathingtrial,SBT)是判断能否成功撤机较为可靠的手段[4],在自主呼吸试验(SBT)时膈肌需要参与做功,膈肌参与呼吸做功的增加利于患者撤机,因此,膈肌功能监测是预测脱机成败的关键因素之一,但是,仍有部分患者通过了SBT试验而最终撤机失败[5]。
膈肌是最主要的呼吸肌,膈肌功能障碍是导致撤机失败的最主要问题原因[6]。
传统的膈肌功能监测包括胸片、磁共振、跨膈压等,这些监测膈肌的工具具有辐射、有创、不利于床旁反复操作等缺点[2,7]。
因此,需要一种新的临床监测工具,既可以避免上述局限性前提下,又可直观的观察膈肌结构和功能。
随着科技的进步,超声监测膈肌功能以其具有无创、便携、床旁可反复操作性等优势点[2],逐渐成为ICU中一项必备的床旁检查工具[1],因此本文就超声膈肌对机械通气撤机评估的新进展进行综述。
16NoninvasiveVentilation

Introduction
Invasive mechanical ventilation has problems because of the endotracheal tube (ETT)
– Laryngeal and vocal cord trauma – Ventilator-associated pneumonia
Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema
Many studies since 2001 show NPPV benefits for patients with CPE
– NPPV results in faster patient improvement – Better tolerated than intubation – Reduces mortality – Reduces intubation rates – Reduces ICU length of stay
Hypoxemic ARF
Results are varied and unclear with this large group of patients
Many studies assess specific diseases instead
Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema
– Control group (n=16):
▪ Subtherapeutic NPPV + conventional pharmacology
Soroksky A, Stav D, Shpirer I. A pilot prospective, randomized, placebocontrolled trial of bilevel positive airway pressure in acute asthma attack. Chest 2003;123:1018-1025
撤机技术weaning

PROBLEMS
Patiparn Toomtong Department of Anesthesiology Siriraj Hospital Mahidol University
Although life-saving, IPPV may be associated with many complications, including:
Capacity of respiratory system
• Central drive to breathe • Transmission of CNS signal via Phrenic nerve • Impairment of resp muscles to generate effective pressure gradients • Impairment of normal muscle force generation
Consequences of PPV Aspects of volutrauma Adverse effects of intubation and tracheostomy造口
Optimal Ventilatory Care Requires
Attention to minimizing adverse hemodynamic effects Averting volutrauma Effecting freedom from IPPV as early as possible
Why patients are unable to sustain spontaneous breathing
• Concept of Load exceeding Capacity to breathe • Load on respiratory system • Capacity of respiratory system
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Weaning and Discontinuing Ventilatory Support
10 Unless there is evidence for clearly irreversible disease (eg, high spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a patient requiring prolonged ventilatory support should not be considered permanently ventilatordependent until 3 months of weaning attempts have been made. B 11 When medically stable, patients who have failed ventilator discontinuation attempts in the ICU should be transferred to a facility that specializes in such patients. C 12 Weaning strategies in the prolonged mechanically ventilated patient should be slow-paced and should include gradually lengthening self-breathing trials.C
Ventilator Discontinuation Protocols
Introduction
Mechanical ventilation is a common life support modality in ICUs. The process of ventilatory support follows a continuum of care, beginning with the patient requiring initial support and hopefully ending with the ability to sustain spontaneous breathing (Fig. 1). Some patients move through the process quickly, while others require a longer period, and some do not make it through at all. Throughout the process, many patient assessments are made and ventilator adjustments executed to accomplish the therapeutic goals of improving oxygenation and ventilation, increasing patient comfort, and minimizing the likelihood of causing secondary injury such as ventilatorinduced lung injury ,ventilator-associated diaphragmatic dysfunction, or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).
Fig. 1. Continuum of care of the mechanically ventilated patient
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Weaning and Discontinuing Ventilatory Support
1 In patients requiring mechanical ventilation 24 hours, reversing all possible ventilatory and non-ventilatory issues should be an integral part of the ventilator discontinuance process. B 2 A formal assessment of discontinuation potential should be made if the following criteria occur: B • Evidence of reversal of the underlying cause for respiratory failure • Adequate oxygenation (eg, PaO2/FIO2 >150–200 mmHg) on low PEEP ( 5–8 cm H2O) and pH ≥7.25 • Hemodynamic stability : no active myocardial ischemia, no clinically important hypotension (no vasopressors, low dose<5ug/kg/min dopamine or dobutamine are OK) • Capability to initiate an inspiratory effort 3 Formal discontinuation assessment should be performed during a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) rather than while receiving substantial ventilatory support. A • An initial brief period of spontaneous breathing can be used to assess the capacity of continuing onto a formal SBT. • The criteria for SBT tolerance include respiratory pattern, adequacy of gas exchange, hemodynamic stability, and subjective comfort. • SBT tolerance lasting 30–120 min should prompt consideration for permanent ventilator discontinuation.
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Weaning and Discontinuing Ventilatory Support
4 After passing the SBT, artificial airway removal should be based on assessment of airway patency and ability of patient to protect the airway. C 5 If failing an SBT, cause for failure should be determined. After reversing cause for failure, if patient meets SBT criteria, SBTs should be performed every 24 hours. A 6 Patients failing an SBT should receive a stable, non-fatiguing, comfortable form of ventilatory support. B 7 Anesthesia/sedation strategies and ventilator management aimed at early extubation should be used in postsurgical patients. A 8 Discontinuation protocols designed for nonphysician healthcare providers should be developed and implemented by ICUs. A Protocols aimed at optimizing sedation also should be developed and implemented. 9 Tracheostomy should be considered after an initial period of stabilization on the ventilator, when it becomes apparent the patient will require prolonged ventilator assistance. Patients who may benefit include those: B • Requiring high levels of sedation to tolerate translaryngeal tubes • Having marginal respiratory mechanics and reduced airway resistance from tracheostomy may reduce risk of muscle overload • Potentially deriving psychological benefit from ability to eat orally, to communicate by speaking, and to experience enhanced mobility • In whom enhanced mobility may assist physical therapy effort
Identifying When to Start theentilator liberation should begin as early as clinically possible. The 2001 American College of Chest Physicians guidelines suggest that a daily formal assessment should be made to determine the patient’s readiness to wean. They recommend using what some refer to as common-sense criteria: evidence of reversal of the underlying cause for respiratory failure, adequate oxygenation on low PEEP, hemodynamic stability, and the ability to initiate an inspiratory effort.