Comparative analysis of fully automated vs. conventional ventilation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients: Impact on alarms, interventions, and nurse acceptance.
van Haren LMAA., Nabben DLJ., Kloeze C., Dekker MAC., De Vries TJC., Buiteman-Kruizinga LA., Neto AS., van Leijsen T., Paulus F., van Meenen DMP., Montenij L., Korsten EHM., Bindels AJGH., Bouwman AR., Schultz MJ., De Bie Dekker AJR.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the number of alarms, interventions and nurses' acceptance of automated ventilation with INTELLiVENT-ASV versus conventional ventilation strategy in patients receiving postoperative ventilation after cardiac surgery. METHODS: This preplanned secondary analysis of the 'POSITiVE' randomized clinical trial compared INTELLiVENT-ASV (automated ventilation) with conventional ventilation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. The number of critical alarms and manual ventilator interventions were compared during the first three hours of ventilation or until extubation. Nurses' acceptance was assessed using a Technology Acceptance Model 2-based questionnaire and a user acceptance score from 1 to 10. RESULTS: POSITiVE randomized 220 patients (109 to automated and 111 to conventional ventilation). The average number of critical alarms per monitoring hour was similar between the automated and conventional group (5.6 vs 5.7; p = 0.823). The automated group required fewer manual interventions per monitoring hour for both ventilation control (0.7 vs 1.9; p