Timing of mechanical ventilation in sepsis,Critical Care

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Crit. Care › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Timing of mechanical ventilation in sepsis
Critical Care ( IF 8.8 ) Pub Date : 2024-11-29 , DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-05179-5
Juqin Shao, Juan Lin

To the editor,

A recent study [1] by Dr. Kim and colleagues examined the association between the timing of mechanical ventilation (MV) and clinical outcomes in ICU patients with sepsis. The study included 2440 adult sepsis patients from 20 hospitals in Korea. Results showed that the early MV group had lower in-hospital mortality, shorter ICU stays, and less tracheostomy rate compared to the delayed MV group, suggesting that early MV may benefit sepsis patients. However, certain considerations should be taken into account when interpreting these findings.

First, the reason for MV in sepsis patients may contribute to the differences observed between the early and delayed MV groups. Not all ICU-admitted sepsis patients require intubation, with respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) being common reasons for intubation in this population. Thus, baseline differences, particularly the higher prevalence of primary respiratory infections in the early MV group, may partly explain the observed mortality benefits. Compared to the delayed MV group, the early MV group had a significantly higher rate of respiratory infections (1256/2119 [59.3%] vs. 126/321 [39.3%], p < 0.01), which is a major cause of acute respiratory failure and possibly prompting early intubation. In contrast, patients in the delayed MV group may not initially have pulmonary involvement but developed complications such as ARDS or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) as their disease progressed. In this case, the differences between the early and delayed MV groups are more likely due to differences in disease status rather than the timing of intubation itself.

Second, regarding clinical applicability, the study’s inclusion criteria limit its generalizability to other sepsis patients, as not all sepsis patients require intubation. For example, in the current study, 2363 of 4890 patients admitted with sepsis did not require MV during their ICU stay and were excluded from the analysis. Thus, while this study highlights the potential benefits of early MV, it does not clarify which sepsis patients require MV, and simply applying early MV protocol could lead to unnecessary intubation.

While early MV may be beneficial for sepsis patients with respiratory involvement, a one-size-fits-all approach could lead to suboptimal patient management. Future studies should explore more refined criteria for early versus late MV in sepsis. Stratifying patients by risk factors may help better elucidate the benefits of early MV and prevent unnecessary intubations. Additionally, assessing other respiratory support methods, such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV), as interim measures before invasive intubation could improve outcomes for patients who might avoid mechanical ventilation altogether.

In conclusion, while this study suggests an association between early MV and reduced mortality in sepsis, careful patient selection is essential. Finally, we commend Dr. Kim and colleagues for their significant contribution, and we hope our perspectives aid in the interpretation of these findings.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Kim G, Oh DK, Lee SY, Park MH, Lim CM. Korean sepsis alliance I: impact of the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):297.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

Not applicable.

None

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Intensive Care, Zhejiang Hospital, No. 1229, Gudun Road, Hangzhou, 310013, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China
Juqin Shao & Juan Lin
Intensive Care Unit, Zhejiang Hospital, 12# Linyin Road, Hangzhou City, 310013, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China
Juan Lin

Authors

Juqin ShaoView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Juan LinView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Juqin Shao raised the question and Juan Lin wrote the letter. All authors have reviewed and approved the letter.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Lin.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions