Ventilator-dependent patients in the ICU often experience difficulties with one of the most basic human functions, namely communication, due to intubation. Although various assistive communication tools exist, these are infrequently used in ICU patients. We summarized the current evidence on communication methods with mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. Secondly, we developed an algorithm for communication with these patients based on current evidence. We performed a systematic review. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl, PsychInfo, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to November 2015. Studies that reported a communication intervention with conscious nonverbal mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU aged 18 years or older were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool. The search yielded 9883 publications, of which 31 articles, representing 29 different studies, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality varied from poor to moderate. We identified four communication intervention types: (1) communication boards were studied in three studies—they improved communication and increased patient satisfaction, but they can be time-consuming and limit the ability to produce novel utterances; (2) two types of specialized talking tracheostomy tubes were assessed in eight studies—audible voicing was achieved in the majority of patients (range 74–100 %), but more studies are needed to facilitate safe and effective use; (3) an electrolarynx improved communication in seven studies—its effectiveness was mainly demonstrated with tracheostomized patients; and (4) “high-tech” augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices in nine studies with diverse computerized AAC devices proved to be beneficial communication methods—two studies investigated multiple AAC interventions, and different control devices (e.g., touch-sensitive or eye/blink detection) can be used to ensure that physical limitations do not prevent use of the devices. We developed an algorithm for the assessment and selection of a communication intervention with nonverbal and conscious mechanically intubated patients in the ICU. Although evidence is limited, results suggest that most communication methods may be effective in improving patient–healthcare professional communication with mechanically ventilated patients. A combination of methods is advised. We developed an algorithm to standardize the approach for selection of communication techniques.

The stethoscope is used as first line diagnostic tool in assessment of patients with pulmonary symptoms. However, there is much debate about the diagnostic accuracy of this instrument. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation for the most common respiratory pathologies. Studies concerning adult patients with respiratory symptoms are included. Main outcomes are pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, likelihood ratios (LRs), area under the curve (AUC) of lung auscultation for different pulmonary pathologies and breath sounds. A meta-regression analysis is performed to reduce observed heterogeneity. For 34 studies the overall pooled sensitivity for lung auscultation is 37% and specificity 89%. LRs and AUC of auscultation for congestive heart failure, pneumonia and obstructive lung diseases are low, LR− and specificity are acceptable. Abnormal breath sounds are highly specific for (hemato)pneumothorax in patients with trauma. Results are limited by significant heterogeneity. Lung auscultation has a low sensitivity in different clinical settings and patient populations, thereby hampering its clinical utility. When better diagnostic modalities are available, they should replace lung auscultation. Only in resource limited settings, with a high prevalence of disease and in experienced hands, lung auscultation has still a role.

Content validity is key when developing a new outcome measurement instrument or selecting an existing measurement instrument. Without good content validity, wrong conclusions can be drawn about an outcome that is measured. In this article, we explain that content validity refers to the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the instruments' content. Content validity is not only relevant for patient-reported outcome measures but also for other outcome measurement instruments, such as clinician-reported outcome measures and performance-based tests. It is preferably assessed in qualitative studies, eg, focus group studies or Delphi studies. When developing an instrument, the focus is first on the relevance and comprehensiveness of the content of the instrument, then the content is developed, and next its comprehensibility is evaluated. Steps may be repeated. When evaluating content validity of an existing measurement instrument, the three aspects of content validity are evaluated at the same time. Content validity helps to understand whether the content of the measurement instrument is a sufficient representation of the outcome being measured (relevance and comprehensiveness), and whether the formulation used in the measurement instrument (eg, to describe instructions, items, tasks, explanations) is sufficiently understood (comprehensibility) by the people involved in the measurement.

Background: Data from interventional trials of systemic anticoagulation for sepsis inconsistently suggest beneficial effects in case of acute lung injury (ALI). Severe systemic bleeding due to anticoagulation may have offset the possible positive effects. Nebulization of anticoagulants may allow for improved local biological availability and as such may improve efficacy in the lungs and lower the risk of systemic bleeding complications. Method: We performed a systematic review of preclinical studies and clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of nebulized anticoagulants in the setting of lung injury in animals and ALI in humans. Results: The efficacy of nebulized activated protein C, antithrombin, heparin and danaparoid has been tested in diverse animal models of direct (for example, pneumonia-, intra-pulmonary lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-, and smoke inhalation-induced lung injury) and indirect lung injury (for example, intravenous LPS- and trauma-induced lung injury). Nebulized anticoagulants were found to have the potential to attenuate pulmonary coagulopathy and frequently also inflammation. Notably, nebulized danaparoid and heparin but not activated protein C and antithrombin, were found to have an effect on systemic coagulation. Clinical trials of nebulized anticoagulants are very limited. Nebulized heparin was found to improve survival of patients with smoke inhalation-induced ALI. In a trial of critically ill patients who needed mechanical ventilation for longer than two days, nebulized heparin was associated with a higher number of ventilator-free days. In line with results from preclinical studies, nebulization of heparin was found to have an effect on systemic coagulation, but without causing systemic bleedings. Conclusion: Local anticoagulant therapy through nebulization of anticoagulants attenuates pulmonary coagulopathy and frequently also inflammation in preclinical studies of lung injury. Recent human trials suggest nebulized heparin for ALI to be beneficial and safe, but data are very limited.

Background: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threating disorder that contributes significantly to critical illness. No specific pharmacological interventions directed at lung injury itself have proven effective in improving outcome of patients with ARDS. Platelet activation was identified as a key component in ARDS pathophysiology and may provide an opportunity for preventive and therapeutic strategies. We hypothesize that use of acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) may prevent and/or attenuate lung injury. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of preclinical studies and meta-analysis of clinical studies investigating the efficacy of ASA in the setting of lung injury. Medline, embase, and cochrane databases were searched. Results: The literature search yielded 1,314 unique articles. Fifteen preclinical studies and eight clinical studies fulfilled the in- and exclusion criteria. In the animal studies, the overall effect of ASA was positive, e.g., ASA improved survival and attenuated inflammation and pulmonary edema. Mechanisms of actions involved, among others, are interference with the neutrophil-platelets interaction, reduction of leukotrienes, neutrophil extracellular traps, and prostaglandins. High-dose ASA may be the drug of choice. A meta-analysis of three clinical studies showed an association between ASA use and a reduced incidence of ARDS (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36–0.98), albeit with substantial between-study heterogeneity. All studies had their own shortcomings in methodological quality. Conclusion: This systematic review of preclinical studies and meta-analysis of clinical studies suggests a beneficial role for ASA in ARDS prevention and treatment. However, the currently available data is insufficient to justify an indication for ASA in ARDS. The body of literature does support further studies in humans. We suggest clinical trials in which the mechanisms of action of ASA in lung injury models are being evaluated to guide optimal timing and dose, before prospective randomized trials.