Examination of High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation Initiation Protocols

Background: High-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) has been used in patients ranging from neonates to adults. There is little evidence to support protocol development for HFPV. This study aims to describe how practitioners initiate HFPV based on hospital protocols. Methods: Protocols were identified in published literature, and voluntarily submitted after an email was sent via a list-serve and posted on AARConnect. Settings were categorized based on the VDR-4 manual, recommendations from Forrest Bird,8 and feedback from subject matter experts (SME). Categories were developed with SME interviews to establish low, moderate, high, and variable/match conventional settings. The category table was reviewed by SMEs for feedback based on clinical experiences. Demand and oscillatory PEEP categories were off, low (1-3 cm H2O), moderate (4-6 cm H2O), high (≥ 7 cm H2O), and match conventional. Pulsatile flow categories were low (20-30 cm H2O), moderate (31-40 cm H2O), high (≥ 40 cm H2O), and match conventional/variable. Results: Eighteen protocols were identified. The low and moderate categories for demand PEEP each had 5 (28%) protocols, and 2 (11%) protocols were variable. Moderate oscillatory PEEP had 4 (22%) protocols, high had 7 (39%), and variable had 5 (28%) protocols. Pulsatile flow had 10 (56%) protocols in the low category and 5 (28%) were variable. Conclusions: Setting variation among protocols indicates little agreement between hospitals on the appropriate initiation strategy for HFPV. Future studies are needed to develop evidence-based protocols and determine a systematic approach for HFPV settings in specific patient populations.Initiation Setting CategoriesInitial Settings0Low (1)Moderate (2)High (3)Match Conventional/Variable (4)Demand PEEP (cmH2O)Off1-34-6≥ 7 Percussive Rate (bpm) 300-400400-500> 500 I time/E time (sec) 11.52> 2 secConvective Pressure Rise (cmH2O)Off1-34-6≥ 7 Pulsatile Flow (cmH2O) 20-3031-40> 40 Oscillatory PEEP (cmH2O) 1-34-6≥ 7 Convective Rate (bpm) 10-1415-19≥ 20 Airway Cuff LeakNoYes   Category Percentage TableSettingNot Addressed0Low (1)Moderate (2)High (3)Match Conventional/Variable (4)Percussive Rate n(%)0 (0%)--1 (6%)14 (78%)3 (17%)0 (0%)Convective Rate n(%)0 (0%)0 (0%)3 (17%)13 (72%)1 (6%)1 (6%)I time/E time n(%)1 (6%)--0 (0%)1 (6%)12 (67%)4 (22%)Pulsatile Flow n(%)0 (0%)--10 (56%)3 (17%)0(0%)5 (28%)Convective Pressure Rise n(%)11 (61%)2 (11%)0 (0%)2 (11%)2 (11%)1 (6%)Demand PEEP n(%)2 (11%)3 (17%)5 (28%)5 (28%)1 (6%)2 (11%)Oscillatory PEEP n(%)2 (11%)0 (0%)0 (0%)4 (22%)7 (39%)5 (28%)Airway Cuff Leak n(%)6 (33%)0 (0%)12 (67%)------

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Respiratory Care
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.20244115872
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examination of High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation Initiation Protocols

Donna D. Gardner, A. K. Thompson, Megan Spurny Koster
Respiratory Care
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
article

Examination of High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation Initiation Protocols

Donna D. Gardner, A. K. Thompson, Megan Spurny Koster
article en

Abstract

Background: High-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) has been used in patients ranging from neonates to adults. There is little evidence to support protocol development for HFPV. This study aims to describe how practitioners initiate HFPV based on hospital protocols. Methods: Protocols were identified in published literature, and voluntarily submitted after an email was sent via a list-serve and posted on AARConnect. Settings were categorized based on the VDR-4 manual, recommendations from Forrest Bird,8 and feedback from subject matter experts (SME). Categories were developed with SME interviews to establish low, moderate, high, and variable/match conventional settings. The category table was reviewed by SMEs for feedback based on clinical experiences. Demand and oscillatory PEEP categories were off, low (1-3 cm H2O), moderate (4-6 cm H2O), high (≥ 7 cm H2O), and match conventional. Pulsatile flow categories were low (20-30 cm H2O), moderate (31-40 cm H2O), high (≥ 40 cm H2O), and match conventional/variable. Results: Eighteen protocols were identified. The low and moderate categories for demand PEEP each had 5 (28%) protocols, and 2 (11%) protocols were variable. Moderate oscillatory PEEP had 4 (22%) protocols, high had 7 (39%), and variable had 5 (28%) protocols. Pulsatile flow had 10 (56%) protocols in the low category and 5 (28%) were variable. Conclusions: Setting variation among protocols indicates little agreement between hospitals on the appropriate initiation strategy for HFPV. Future studies are needed to develop evidence-based protocols and determine a systematic approach for HFPV settings in specific patient populations.Initiation Setting CategoriesInitial Settings0Low (1)Moderate (2)High (3)Match Conventional/Variable (4)Demand PEEP (cmH2O)Off1-34-6≥ 7 Percussive Rate (bpm) 300-400400-500> 500 I time/E time (sec) 11.52> 2 secConvective Pressure Rise (cmH2O)Off1-34-6≥ 7 Pulsatile Flow (cmH2O) 20-3031-40> 40 Oscillatory PEEP (cmH2O) 1-34-6≥ 7 Convective Rate (bpm) 10-1415-19≥ 20 Airway Cuff LeakNoYes   Category Percentage TableSettingNot Addressed0Low (1)Moderate (2)High (3)Match Conventional/Variable (4)Percussive Rate n(%)0 (0%)--1 (6%)14 (78%)3 (17%)0 (0%)Convective Rate n(%)0 (0%)0 (0%)3 (17%)13 (72%)1 (6%)1 (6%)I time/E time n(%)1 (6%)--0 (0%)1 (6%)12 (67%)4 (22%)Pulsatile Flow n(%)0 (0%)--10 (56%)3 (17%)0(0%)5 (28%)Convective Pressure Rise n(%)11 (61%)2 (11%)0 (0%)2 (11%)2 (11%)1 (6%)Demand PEEP n(%)2 (11%)3 (17%)5 (28%)5 (28%)1 (6%)2 (11%)Oscillatory PEEP n(%)2 (11%)0 (0%)0 (0%)4 (22%)7 (39%)5 (28%)Airway Cuff Leak n(%)6 (33%)0 (0%)12 (67%)------

Respiratory CareVol. 69(10_suppl)
Boise State University (US), Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.