Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32411506›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Mucoactive agent use in adult UK Critical Care Units: a survey of health care professionals' perception, pharmacists' description of practice, and point prevalence of mucoactive use in invasively mechanically ventilated patients.

Mark Borthwick, Danny McAuley, John Warburton, Rohan Anand, Judy Bradley, Bronwen Connolly, Bronagh Blackwood, Brenda O'Neill, Marc Chikhani, Paul Dark and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Use of mechanical insufflation exsufflation and manual techniques in an intubated adult with COVID-19 positioned in prone-A case study.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Mark BorthwickOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Danny McAuleyWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
John WarburtonUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Rohan AnandWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Judy BradleyWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Bronwen ConnollyWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Bronagh BlackwoodWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Brenda O'NeillCentre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom.
Marc ChikhaniAnaesthesia and Critical Care, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Paul DarkSchool of Biological Sciences, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, United States of America.
Murali ShyamsundarWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
MICCS collaborators—Critical Care Pharmacists
Queen's University Belfast · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure is one of the most common indications for admission to intensive care units (ICUs). Airway mucus clearance is impaired in these patients medication, impaired mucociliary motility, increased mucus production etc. and mucoactive agents have the potential to improve outcomes. However, studies to date have provided inconclusive results. Despite this uncertainty, mucoactives are used in adult ICUs, although the extent of use and perceptions about place in therapy are not known. AIMS AND

objectivesWe aim to describe the use of mucoactive agents in mechanically ventilated patients in UK adult critical care units. Specifically, our objectives are to describe clinicians perceptions about the use of mucoactive agents, understand the indications and anticipated benefits, and describe the prevalence and type of mucoactive agents in use.

methodsWe conducted three surveys. Firstly, a practitioner-level survey aimed at nurses, physiotherapists and doctors to elucidate individual practitioners perceptions about the use of mucoactive agents. Secondly, a critical care unit-level survey aimed at pharmacists to understand how these perceptions translate into practice. Thirdly, a point prevalence survey to describe the extent of prescribing and range of products in use. The practitioner-level survey was disseminated through the UK Intensive Care Society for completion by a multi-professional membership. The unit-level and point prevalence surveys were disseminated cthrough the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association for completion by pharmacists.

resultsThe individual practitioners survey ranked 'thick secretions' as the main reason for commencing mucoactive agents determined using clinical assessment. The highest ranked perceived benefit for patient centred outcomes was the duration of ventilation. Of these respondents, 79% stated that further research was important and 87% expressed support for a clinical trial. The unit-level survey found that mucoactive agents were used in 83% of units. The most highly ranked indication was again 'thick secretions' and the most highly ranked expected patient centred clinical benefit being improved gas exchange and reduced ventilation time. Only five critical care units provided guidelines to direct the use of mucoactive agents (4%). In the point prevalence survey, 411/993 (41%) of mechanically ventilated patients received at least one mucoactive agent. The most commonly administered mucoactives were inhaled sodium chloride 0.9% (235/993, 24%), systemic carbocisteine (161/993, 16%) and inhaled hypertonic sodium cloride (127/993, 13%).

conclusionsMucoactive agents are used extensively in mechanically ventilated adult patients in UK ICUs to manage 'thick secretions', with a key aim to reduce the duration of ventilation. There is widespread support for clinical trials to determine the optimal use of mucoactive agent therapy in this patient population.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory failureMechanical ventilationMucoactive agents

Identifiers

PMID32411506
PMCPMC7204825
OpenAlexW3023308596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.