|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From the Respiratory Care Department (Mssrs. Reily and Tollok, and Ms. Mallitz), Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; and the Departments of Anesthesia (Dr. Hanson) and Medicine (Dr. Fuchs), Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Correspondence to: Barry D. Fuchs, MD, FCCP, Medical Director, Medical Intensive Care Unit and Respiratory Care Services, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 3400 Spruce StFounders 9.066, Philadelphia, PA 19104; e-mail: barry.fuchs{at}uphs.upenn.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: aeromedical transport ARDS interhospital transfer life-threatening hypoxemia prostacyclin nitric oxide pulmonary vasodilator
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Ventilator-dependent patients with ARDS and severe hypoxemia represent a particularly difficult challenge for transport, despite the use of high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP).4 These patients require more intensive monitoring and higher levels of respiratory support, including a portable or transport mechanical ventilator, high oxygen requirements, and uninterrupted PEEP therapy.5 Since there is little reserve in oxygenation, instability, as might occur with positional changes or inadvertent airway decompression, can be devastating. To reduce this risk and to minimize travel time, a helicopter staffed by personnel with specialized aeromedical training often is used for transport. However, in some patients the degree of hypoxemia is so severe that, in order to proceed with transport safely, unconventional therapeutic modalities to improve oxygenation have been used.67 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and nitric oxide (NO) have been employed for use in transport airplanes; however, there is insufficient space in a transport helicopter to transport an adult patient and the delivery systems required with these modalities.
Prostacyclin (PGI2) [epoprostenol, Flolan; GlaxoSmithKline; Triangle Park, NC], like NO, may be used to achieve selective pulmonary vasodilation when administered by inhalation.8 In contrast to NO, inhaled PGI2 (iPGI2) can be administered using a standard nebulizer that can easily fit into the cabin of a transport helicopter.9 In addition, several studies10 have demonstrated that iPGI2 is equally as effective as NO in improving oxygenation in patients with ARDS. Since iPGI2 can be administered through a standard nebulizer, it represents a practical option for use as an adjunctive treatment of hypoxemia in an adult patient being transported by helicopter. This report describes our first experience using iPGI2 to facilitate the interhospital helicopter transport of a patient with life-threatening hypoxemia, secondary to ARDS, who was otherwise too ill to be transferred to our hospital by our aeromedical transport team.
| Case Report |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Considering the 50-mile distance to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the acuity of the patient, aeromedical transport via helicopter was chosen as the safest mode of transport. On arrival at the referring hospital, the air medical transport team (Penn Star) attempted to place the patient on a transport ventilator (model 750 portable critical care volume ventilator; Uni-Vent; West Caldwell, NJ). Numerous trials failed, with arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) falling to < 80%. The medical director of the aeromedical transport team was contacted, and it was decided to send a respiratory therapist with the expertise to transport the patient using iPGI2. A pharmacist at our hospital prepared PGI2 at a concentration of 30,000 ng/mL in a 50-mL syringe. Ventilator settings at the time were pressure-controlled ventilation with an inspiratory pressure of 30 cm H2O, an RR of 20 breaths/min, an FIO2 of 1.0, a PEEP of 14 cm H2O, and an inspiratory/expiratory time ratio of 2:1. On these settings, the exhaled VT averaged 600 mL, with a minute ventilation of 12 L/min. Since the transport ventilator did not have pressure control ventilation capabilities, the patient was placed on assist-control mode with VT at 600 mL, RR at 14 breaths/min, FIO2 of 1.0, a PEEP of 16 cm H2O, and an inspiratory/expiratory time ratio of 1:1.
To administer the prescribed dose of 50 ng/kg/min, the respiratory therapist first diluted the PGI2 at the bedside with the appropriate volume of normal saline solution and then placed it in the nebulizer. Therapy with iPGI2 at a dose of 50 ng/kg/min was initiated using a mini-heart nebulizer placed at the distal end of the inspiratory limb of the ventilator circuit and set to a flow of 3 L/min, as per the recommendations of the nebulizer manufacturer. Approximately 3 min after starting iPGI2 therapy, the SaO2 increased from 82 to 91%. During the initial 10 min of iPGI2 administration, the first attempt to place the patient on the transport ventilator failed, however, the second attempt, which was performed shortly thereafter, was successful. The patient then was monitored for an additional 25 min prior to transport, during which time the SaO2 consistently remained at > 90%. The patient then was transported to the helicopter pad by ground ambulance and subsequently was brought to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania via a medevac helicopter. Throughout the transport, the SaO2 of the patient remained at well > 90%, and eventually increased to 100% when she received 100% oxygen on arrival at our hospital. The transport took place without incident, and the patient arrived safely at our facility, 2 h and 15 min following the initiation of iPGI2 therapy. The patient continued to receive iPGI2 for 3 days and then was weaned successfully. The patient was extubated within 2 days and was discharged from the hospital 1 week later.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although NO would likely have improved oxygenation in our patient, similar to iPGI2, NO was not a viable option in this clinical situation due to the space constraints in the helicopter cabin, since the size of the NO delivery system currently available in the United States is prohibitive.11 The decision to use iPGI2, and the ability to administer it "on the fly" as an immediate solution to the critical situation faced by the transport team in this case, were logical extensions of our current hospital guideline for the appropriate indications for iPGI2 in critically ill adult hospitalized patients. Physicians in our health system were involved early on in the investigational use of NO. As a result, intensivists and surgeons were so comfortable using NO and impressed with its therapeutic effects, that NO was tested routinely in a variety of clinical situations both in the ICU and the operating room. Consequently, when the US Food and Drug Administration approved NO for use in patients, utilization continued unabated despite its high cost (estimated annual expense, $650,000). In an effort to control these costs, we implemented a drug substitution program using iPGI2 to replace NO. The methodology that we used for drug preparation and administration has recently been published.9 iPGI2 was chosen because its therapeutic efficacy was similar to that for NO for the treatment of hypoxemia and pulmonary hypertension, and because of its similar safety profile.810 The intensivists and surgeons in our institution have fully adopted this practice change and have not prescribed NO in the last 12 months. Thus, when presented with the patient described in this case, our physicians and respiratory therapists were comfortable exporting the procedure for administrating iPGI2 to the referring hospital and adapting it for use in the transport helicopter, to enable and ensure the safe transport of this critically ill patient to our hospital.
In summary, this case demonstrates that inhaled PGI2 can be employed relatively easily and safely during helicopter transport for patients with severe hypoxemia (or pulmonary hypertension) who may otherwise not be considered safe for transport to a referring hospital.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received for publication October 17, 2003. Accepted for publication December 18, 2003.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. J. van Lieshout, M. V. Vroom, B. D. Fuchs, and D. Reily ICU Transport: Interhospital Transport of Critically Ill Patient With Dedicated Intensive Care Ventilator Chest, February 1, 2005; 127(2): 688 - 689. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |