Michael C Sklar1,2, Karen Burns3,2, Nuttapol Rittayamai4, Ashley Lanys2, Michela Rauseo2,5, Lu Chen2, Martin Dres2,6, Guang-Qiang Chen2,7, Ewan C Goligher3,8, Neill K J Adhikari3,9, Laurent Brochard3,2, Jan O Friedrich3,2. 1. 1 Department of Anesthesiology and. 2. 2 Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. 3 Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. 4 Department of Medicine, Division of Respiratory Diseases and Tuberculosis, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. 5 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. 6. 6 Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSERM, UMRS_1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France. 7. 7 Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 8. 8 Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and. 9. 9 Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are designed to simulate conditions after extubation, and it is essential to understand the physiologic impact of different methods. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and pooled measures reflecting patient respiratory effort among studies comparing SBT methods in a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science from inception to January 2016 to identify randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials reporting physiologic measurements of respiratory effort (pressure-time product) or work of breathing during at least two SBT techniques. Secondary outcomes included the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), and effort measured before and after extubation. The quality of physiologic measurement and research design was appraised for each study. Outcomes were analyzed using ratio of means. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 4,138 citations, 16 studies (n = 239) were included. Compared with T-piece, pressure support ventilation significantly reduced work by 30% (ratio of means [RoM], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.86), effort by 30% (RoM, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82), and RSBI by 20% (RoM, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). Continuous positive airway pressure had significantly lower pressure-time product by 18% (RoM, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.999) compared with T-piece, and reduced RSBI by 16% (RoM, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95). Studies comparing SBTs with the postextubation period demonstrated that pressure support induced significantly lower effort and RSBI; T-piece reduced effort, but not the work, compared with postextubation. Work, effort, and RSBI measured while intubated on the ventilator with continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm H2O were no different than extubation. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure support reduces respiratory effort compared with T-piece. Continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm H2O and T-piece more accurately reflect the physiologic conditions after extubation.
RATIONALE: Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are designed to simulate conditions after extubation, and it is essential to understand the physiologic impact of different methods. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and pooled measures reflecting patient respiratory effort among studies comparing SBT methods in a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science from inception to January 2016 to identify randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials reporting physiologic measurements of respiratory effort (pressure-time product) or work of breathing during at least two SBT techniques. Secondary outcomes included the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), and effort measured before and after extubation. The quality of physiologic measurement and research design was appraised for each study. Outcomes were analyzed using ratio of means. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 4,138 citations, 16 studies (n = 239) were included. Compared with T-piece, pressure support ventilation significantly reduced work by 30% (ratio of means [RoM], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.86), effort by 30% (RoM, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82), and RSBI by 20% (RoM, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). Continuous positive airway pressure had significantly lower pressure-time product by 18% (RoM, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.999) compared with T-piece, and reduced RSBI by 16% (RoM, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95). Studies comparing SBTs with the postextubation period demonstrated that pressure support induced significantly lower effort and RSBI; T-piece reduced effort, but not the work, compared with postextubation. Work, effort, and RSBI measured while intubated on the ventilator with continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm H2O were no different than extubation. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure support reduces respiratory effort compared with T-piece. Continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm H2O and T-piece more accurately reflect the physiologic conditions after extubation.
Entities:
Keywords:
mechanical ventilation; pressure time product; weaning; work of breathing
Authors: Carles Subirà; Gonzalo Hernández; Antònia Vázquez; Raquel Rodríguez-García; Alejandro González-Castro; Carolina García; Olga Rubio; Lara Ventura; Alexandra López; Maria-Carmen de la Torre; Elena Keough; Vanesa Arauzo; Cecilia Hermosa; Carmen Sánchez; Ana Tizón; Eva Tenza; César Laborda; Sara Cabañes; Victoria Lacueva; Maria Del Mar Fernández; Anna Arnau; Rafael Fernández Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Zhong-Hua Shi; Annemijn H Jonkman; Pieter Roel Tuinman; Guang-Qiang Chen; Ming Xu; Yan-Lin Yang; Leo M A Heunks; Jian-Xin Zhou Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-04