Evidence Hub

Alarms and alarm management with automated versus conventional ventilation in neurocritical care patients

van Limpt GJC, van Vliet P, Molenaar MA, de Bie AJR, van Haren L, van Leijsen TD, Robba C, Sinnige JS et al.

Intensive & critical care nursing, 2026

13 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: False or clinically irrelevant alarms are a major driver of ICU alarm fatigue and nursing workload. Ventilator alarms make up a large share, and although automated ventilation modes can reduce manual adjustments, their effect on alarm burden is still unclear. This issue can be particularly relevant in neurocritical care patients, where precise ventilator and alarm management is imperative for patient safety.

Objectives: This explorative post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial compared alarm frequency and management between automated ventilation and conventional ventilation in neurocritical care patients.

Methods: Ventilator alarms and manual ventilator changes were captured continuously from the ventilator for up to 24 h per patient. The primary endpoint was a composite of workload-relevant alarms; with alarm management interventions at the ventilator as a key secondary outcome. Additional endpoints included redundant alarms, alarm duration and ventilator management.

Results: 13 patients received automated ventilation and 24 received conventional ventilation. No difference was observed in workload-relevant alarm frequency between automated and conventional ventilation (3.28 [2.87 to 4.30] vs 3.73 [1.66 to 7.33] alarms per hour; P = 0.81), while alarm management interventions at the ventilator were lower with automated ventilation (0.14 [0.10 to 0.15] vs 0.21 [0.17 to 0.31] interventions per hour; P = 0.01). Other alarm frequencies, duration of alarms…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 13 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free