Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

Approach to Home Mechanical Ventilation Prevalence: Databases or Surveys?

Javier Sayas Catalán and Manel Luján Torné
Respiratory Care April 2018, 63 (4) 491-492; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.06211
Javier Sayas Catalán
Servicio de Neumología Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Manel Luján Torné
Servei de Pneumologia Hospital Universitario Parc Taulí Sabadell, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The prevalence of patients who receive mechanical ventilation at home is growing in developed countries. At the same time, and despite recommendations about the use of home mechanical ventilation in specific underlying conditions, geographic differences in patterns of use and variability in its prescription are reported, and both are topics with important clinical and economic consequences.1,2

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Povitz et al3 describe the patterns of use of home mechanical ventilation in the Ontario area in Canada and its changes over a 12-year period. According to their data, prevalence in home mechanical ventilation prescription increased by 0.3/100,000 per year of study, in the same range as prevalence rates reported in some countries in Europe. Two important topics related to any description of home mechanical ventilation prescription should be analyzed: the reliability of the sources of data, and the underlying reasons that justify variability and increase of prevalence.

The way in which home mechanical ventilation prevalence is measured is worth noting, because most previous studies that have focused on this topic are primarily based on surveys. For example, updated surveys on the use of home ventilation in subjects with COPD have been published recently.4 In addition, in the same setting and country as the current work by Povitz et al,3 the CANuVent group conducted a prevalence study based on surveys of service providers.5

There are, however, some issues regarding primary sources of information. When using surveys to estimate the prevalence of home ventilation, there is a clear risk of so-called champion bias in the response rate, as noted in the study by Crimi et al,1 who showed a trend toward higher response rates by high-prescribing doctors and ventilation expertise centers. Such bias in the response rate may explain why there is not only inaccuracy in the reported prevalence values, but also different patterns of prescription. Adherence to guidelines for prescription is thus highly variable.

On the other hand, the use of mandatory administrative databases of home ventilation prescription may provide a more accurate picture. It may also highlight some inequities and variability in prescription, as noted in studies from Spain and Sweden.2,6 Nationwide or regional prospective administrative databases that require the patient to get a home ventilation prescription may present a more complete picture of the distribution and prevalence of such prescriptions. It should be noted that data extracted from administrative prescriptions usually lack sufficient clinical data, and thus should be managed with caution.7,8 Cohort assembly, case ascertainment, code checking, and establishing a mechanism to correct them, as well as searching for missing data through different databases, are methods used to mitigate the consequences of this lack of clinical information.

Despite recognizing the authors' effort and appropriate compensation for the lack of information, data about adherence, quality of life, and comorbidities were scarce. The absence of a change in mortality over time suggests that the increase in home mechanical ventilation prescription and its potential implications (ie, by more experienced or less experienced prescribers, indications in advanced stages of disease as a rescue, or even palliative therapy) did not decrease the overall quality of therapy.3

Concerns about adherence to local recommendations should also be noted. For example, while Canadian guidelines are highly restrictive in the indication of home mechanical ventilation in COPD, up to 20% of prescriptions presumably belong to individuals with COPD.9 This pattern of prescription is seen in some European countries as well, suggesting that prescribers, despite a lack of evidence, perceive some clinical benefits of home mechanical ventilation in this subset of patients.1 In recent years, the evidence of a trend toward prescription for stable COPD patients is growing, reinforcing the validity of these patterns of prescription.9,10

Regarding prevalence and variability, Dybwik et al11 recently explored different reasons for inequity in home mechanical ventilation prescription in Norway. Using focus groups, they detected broad enthusiasm, high competence, spreading competence, a multidisciplinary approach, and individual attitudes as factors that drive the prescription of home mechanical ventilation. Whether similar factors affected the increase of prescriptions during the years studied by Povitz et al3 is unknown. There are probably other underlying causes that were not considered, such as device-related factors (eg, affordability, ease of use, monitoring tools) and social determinants (eg, associative movements, social awareness of conditions leading to home ventilation, aging).

Finally, as noted by Povitz et al,3 the design and data collection for this study did not answer some meaningful questions that should be addressed in future research. The administrative database seems to be a robust starting point, but this information should be combined with home care respiratory equipment suppliers' databases or with other sources of information that allow a better characterization of the population. The first step to know how we are performing home ventilation is to measure what we are prescribing, and administrative databases are excellent tools. Developing large, global, open-research, home-ventilation databases with medical records, such as the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation transplant registry, would allow us to answer many questions that this study put on the table.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Javier Sayas Catalán MD, Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Avenida de Córdoba s/n. 28016, Madrid, Spain. E-mail: jsayas.hdoc{at}salud.madrid.org.
  • The authors have disclosed no conflict of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 380

  • Copyright © 2018 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Crimi C,
    2. Noto A,
    3. Princi P,
    4. Cuvelier A,
    5. Masa JF,
    6. Simonds A,
    7. et al
    . Domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in COPD: an international survey of indications and practices. COPD 2016;13(4):483–490.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Escarrabill J,
    2. Tebe C,
    3. Espallargues M,
    4. Torrente E,
    5. Tresserras R,
    6. Argimon J,
    7. et al
    . Variability in home mechanical ventilation prescription. Arch Bronconeumol 2015;51(10):490–495.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Povitz M,
    2. Rose L,
    3. Shariff SZ,
    4. Leonard S,
    5. Welk B,
    6. Jenkyn KB,
    7. et al
    . Home mechanical ventilation: a 12-year population-based retrospective cohort study. Respir Care 2018;63(4):380–387.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. MacIntyre EJ,
    2. Asadi L,
    3. McKim DA,
    4. Bagshaw SM
    . Clinical outcomes associated with home mechanical ventilation: a systematic review. Can Respir J 2016;2016:6547180.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Rose L,
    2. McKim DA,
    3. Katz SL,
    4. Leasa D,
    5. Nonoyama M,
    6. Pedersen C,
    7. et al
    . Home mechanical ventilation in Canada: a national survey. Respir Care 2015;60(5):695–704.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Laub M,
    2. Midgren B
    . Survival of patients on home mechanical ventilation: a nationwide prospective study. Respir Med 2007;101(6):1074–1078.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Lawrenson R,
    2. Williams T,
    3. Farmer R
    . Clinical information for research; the use of general practice databases. J Public Health Med 1999;21(3):299–304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Estimating disease prevalence and incidence using administrative data: some assembly required. J Rheumatol 2013;40(8):1241–1243.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kohnlein T,
    2. Windisch W,
    3. Kohler D,
    4. Drabik A,
    5. Geiseler J,
    6. Hartl S,
    7. et al
    . Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for the treatment of severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014;2(9):698–705.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Murphy PB,
    2. Hart N
    . Home non-invasive ventilation for COPD: how, who and when? Arch Bronconeumol 2018 [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2017.12.005.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dybwik K,
    2. Tollali T,
    3. Nielsen EW,
    4. Brinchmann BS
    . Why does the provision of home mechanical ventilation vary so widely? Chron Respir Dis 2010;7(2):67–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 63 (4)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 63, Issue 4
1 Apr 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Approach to Home Mechanical Ventilation Prevalence: Databases or Surveys?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Approach to Home Mechanical Ventilation Prevalence: Databases or Surveys?
Javier Sayas Catalán, Manel Luján Torné
Respiratory Care Apr 2018, 63 (4) 491-492; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06211

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Approach to Home Mechanical Ventilation Prevalence: Databases or Surveys?
Javier Sayas Catalán, Manel Luján Torné
Respiratory Care Apr 2018, 63 (4) 491-492; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06211
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire