TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative analysis of fully automated vs. conventional ventilation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients
T2 - Impact on alarms, interventions, and nurse acceptance
AU - van Haren, Lisan M.A.A.
AU - Nabben, Daphne L.J.
AU - Kloeze, Carla
AU - Dekker, Michiel A.C.
AU - De Vries, Tineke J.C.
AU - Buiteman-Kruizinga, Laura A.
AU - Neto, Ary Serpa
AU - van Leijsen, Tobias
AU - Paulus, Frederique
AU - van Meenen, David M.P.
AU - Montenij, Leon
AU - Korsten, Erik H.M.
AU - Bindels, Alexander J.G.H.
AU - Bouwman, Arthur R.
AU - Schultz, Marcus J.
AU - De Bie Dekker, Ashley J.R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2025/8
Y1 - 2025/8
N2 - 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 < 0.001) and alarm management (2.0 vs 2.8; p < 0.001). The automated ventilation mode scored higher for perceived usefulness (2.6 vs 2.1; p < 0.001) and user acceptance (8.0 vs 7.0; p < 0.001), but similar for perceived ease of use. Conclusions: Automated ventilation for postoperative cardiac surgery patients had similar alarm frequencies as conventional ventilation, but reduced the number of interventions and showed higher nurses’ acceptance, indicating its potential to optimize patient care and reduce nurses’ workload. Implications for Clinical Practice: Our findings suggest that automated ventilation modes like INTELLiVENT-ASV can reduce the frequency of manual interventions and improve nurses’ acceptance, which may help alleviate nurses’ workload for postoperative cardiac surgery patients.
AB - 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 < 0.001) and alarm management (2.0 vs 2.8; p < 0.001). The automated ventilation mode scored higher for perceived usefulness (2.6 vs 2.1; p < 0.001) and user acceptance (8.0 vs 7.0; p < 0.001), but similar for perceived ease of use. Conclusions: Automated ventilation for postoperative cardiac surgery patients had similar alarm frequencies as conventional ventilation, but reduced the number of interventions and showed higher nurses’ acceptance, indicating its potential to optimize patient care and reduce nurses’ workload. Implications for Clinical Practice: Our findings suggest that automated ventilation modes like INTELLiVENT-ASV can reduce the frequency of manual interventions and improve nurses’ acceptance, which may help alleviate nurses’ workload for postoperative cardiac surgery patients.
KW - Alarms
KW - Closed-loop ventilation
KW - INTELLiVENT-ASV
KW - Intensive care unit
KW - Interventions
KW - Mechanical ventilation
KW - Nurse
KW - Nurse workload
KW - Postoperative cardiac surgery
KW - User acceptance
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85217238176
U2 - 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103963
DO - 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103963
M3 - Article
C2 - 39938276
AN - SCOPUS:85217238176
SN - 0964-3397
VL - 89
JO - Intensive and Critical Care Nursing
JF - Intensive and Critical Care Nursing
M1 - 103963
ER -