Size matters: An observational study investigating estimated height as a reference size for calculating tidal volumes if low tidal volume ventilation is required

PURPOSE: Acute lung injury is a life threatening condition often requiring mechanical ventilation. Lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW, calculated on the basis of a patient’s sex and height), is part of current recommended ventilation strategy. Hence, an exact height is necessary to provide optimal mechanical ventilation. However, it is a common practice to visually estimate the body height of mechanically ventilated patients and use these estimates as a reference size for ventilator settings. We aimed to determine if the common practice of estimating visual height to define tidal volume reduces the possibility of receiving lung-protective ventilation. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 28 mechanically ventilated patients had their heights visually estimated by 20 nurses and 20 physicians. All medical professionals calculated the PBW and a corresponding tidal volume with 6 ml/kg/PBW on the basis of their visual estimation. The patients’ true heights were measured and the true PBW with a corresponding tidal volume was calculated. Finally, estimates and measurements were compared. RESULTS: 1033 estimations were undertaken by 153 medical professionals. The majority of the estimates were imprecise and resulting data comprised taller body heights, higher PBW and higher tidal volumes (all p≤0.01). When estimates of patients´ heights are used as a reference for tidal-volume definition, patients are exposed to mean tidal volumes of 6.5 ± 0.4 ml/kg/PBW. 526 estimation-based tidal volumes (51.1%) did not provide lung-protective ventilation. Shorter subjects (<175cm) were a specific risk group with an increased risk of not receiving lung protective ventilation (OR 6.6; 95%CI 1.2–35.4; p = 0.02), while taller subjects had a smaller risk of being exposed to inadequately high tidal volumes (OR 0.15; 95%CI 0.02–0.8; p = 0.02). Furthermore, we found an increased risk of overestimating if the assessor was a female (OR 1.74; 95%CI 1.14–2.65; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The common practice of visually estimating body height and using these estimates for ventilator settings is imprecise and potentially harmful because it reduces the chance of receiving lung-protective ventilation. Avoiding this practice increases the patient safety. Instead, height should be measured as a standard procedure.