Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Crit Care. 2017 Jun 1;21(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x.

Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
St Michael's Hospital and the Keenan Research Centre/Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
2
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
3
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
4
Department of Critical Care Medicine and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
5
Department of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
6
Division of Critical Care of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
7
Division of Critical Care of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
8
St Michael's Hospital and the Keenan Research Centre/Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. friedrichj@smh.ca.
9
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. friedrichj@smh.ca.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain.

METHODS:

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Ovid Health Star, proceedings of five conferences (1990-2016), and reference lists for randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in intubated adults or children. Primary outcomes were initial SBT success, extubation success, or reintubation. Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data.

RESULTS:

We identified 31 trials (n = 3541 patients). Moderate-quality evidence showed that patients undergoing pressure support (PS) compared with T-piece SBTs (nine trials, n = 1901) were as likely to pass an initial SBT (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.11; I 2 = 77%) but more likely to be ultimately extubated successfully (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10; 11 trials, n = 1904; I 2 = 0%). Exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results for SBT and extubation outcomes suggested that PS (vs T-piece) SBTs also improved initial SBT success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12; I 2 = 0%). Limited data suggest that automatic tube compensation plus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs CPAP alone or PS increase SBT but not extubation success.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients undergoing PS (vs T-piece) SBTs appear to be 6% (95% CI 2-10%) more likely to be extubated successfully and, if the results of an outlier trial are excluded, 6% (95% CI 1-12%) more likely to pass an SBT. Future trials should investigate patients for whom SBT and extubation outcomes are uncertain and compare techniques that maximize differences in support.

KEYWORDS:

Extubation; Extubation outcome; Meta-analysis; Spontaneous breathing trial; Systematic review; Weaning

PMID:
28576127
PMCID:
PMC5455092
DOI:
10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center