Open AccessPractice pattern of aerosol therapy among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in mainland China: A web-based survey involving 447 hospitals
Author(s) -
Zhongheng Zhang,
Peifeng Xu,
Qiang Fang,
Pan Ma,
Hui-Ling Lin,
Jim Fink,
Zongan Liang,
Rongchang Chen,
Huiqing Ge
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0221577
Subject(s) - nebulizer , medicine , aerosol , mechanical ventilation , mainland china , china , anesthesia , meteorology , physics , political science , law
Background and objective Aerosol therapies are widely used for mechanically ventilated patients. However, the practice pattern of aerosol therapy in mainland China remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the current practice of aerosol therapy in mainland China. Methods A web-based survey was conducted by the China Union of Respiratory Care (CURC) from August 2018 to January 2019. The survey was disseminated via Email or WeChat to members of CURC. A questionnaire comprising 16 questions related to hospital information and 12 questions related to the practice of aerosol therapy. Latent class analysis was employed to identify the distinct classes of aerosol therapy practice. Main results A total of 693 valid questionnaires were returned by respiratory care practitioners from 447 hospitals. Most of the practitioners used aerosol therapy for both invasive mechanical ventilation (90.8%) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (91.3%). Practitioners from tertiary care centers were more likely to use aerosol therapy compared with those from non-tertiary care centers (91.9% vs. 85.4%, respectively; p = 0.035). The most commonly used drugs for aerosol therapy were bronchodilators (64.8%) followed by mucolytic agents (44.2%), topical corticosteroids (43.4%) and antibiotics (16.5%). The ultrasonic nebulizer (48.3%) was the most commonly used followed by the jet nebulizer (39.2%), the metered dose inhaler (15.4%) and the vibrating mesh nebulizer (14.6%). Six latent classes were identified via latent class analysis. Class 1 was characterized by the aggressive use of aerosol therapy without a standard protocol, while class 3 was characterized by the absence of aerosol therapy. Conclusions Substantial heterogeneity among institutions with regard to the use of aerosol therapy was noted. The implementation of aerosol therapy during mechanical ventilation was inconsistent in light of recent practice guidelines. Additional efforts by the CURC to improve the implementation of aerosol therapy in mainland China are warranted.