| Literature DB >> 30287605 |
Zhicheng Qian1, Ming Yang2, Lin Li3, Yaolong Chen4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD) as a predictor of weaning outcome.Entities:
Keywords: diaphragmatic dysfunction; diaphragmatic excursion; diaphragmatic thickness fraction; weaning mechanical ventilation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30287605 PMCID: PMC6173234 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Selection of studies included in this meta-analysis.
Main characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review
| Study | N | Age (year) | Study design | Patient category | Inclusion criteria | Duration of MV (day) | DD measurements | Definition of weaning failure | Outcomes |
| Jiang | 27 (49) | 67 (33–84) | Prospective cohort | Medical ICU patients | Received MV and prepared for extubation after SBT | 11±6 | Displacement of the liver/spleen | Reintubation or NIMV within 72 hours | Mean values of liver and spleen displacements (mm) were higher in the |
| Kim | 50 (61) | 66 | Prospective cohort | Medical ICU patients | MV for 48 hours and passed SBT | Non-DD, 8.4 (4.5–17) DD, 24 (15.5–35.4) | DE (mm) | MV within 48 hours of self-breathing | Patients with DD had higher rates of primary (20 of 24 |
| DiNino | 63 (49) | 66±19 | Prospective cohort | Medical ICU patients | MV patients as ready to undergo a weaning trial or SBT | 5 (IQR4) | DT | Reintubation within 48 hours or terminal extubation or tracheostomy | The combined sensitivity and specificity of Δtdi% ≥30% for extubation success was 88% and 71%, respectively |
| Ferrari | 34 (74) | 54.6±12.1 | Prospective cohort | MV patients received tracheostomy in a high- dependency unit | Received MV and underwent SBT | 28 (22–37) | DT | SBT failure | DTF (%) was significantly different between the SG and the FG (56 (38–64) vs 26 (22–30), p<0.0001) |
| Ali and Mohamad | 45 (75) | 54±11.23 | Prospective cohort | Mixed ICU patients | Patients had a likelihood of prolonged | 8±13.22 | DE and DT | MV within 48 hours of self-breathing | SG presented higher DE (23 (19–28) vs 12 (9–14)), p<0.0001 and DTF (56 (35–63) vs 26 (22–33), p<0.0001) |
| Dres | 52 (68) | 57±16 | Prospective cohort | Medical ICU patients | MV for at least 24 hours and underwent SBT | 4 (2–6) | DE and DT | SBT failure | SG presented higher DE (11.2±3.7 vs 8.2±4.2), p=0.01 and DTF (35±12 |
| Gong and Zhang | 32 (73) | 67.59±9.78 | Prospective cohort | Mixed ICU patients | MV for at least 24 hours and passed SBT | SG (5.27±2.64) FG (6.64±2.68) | DE | SBT failure or the need for reintubation, or NIMV or death within 48 hours | No significant difference of |
| Hu | 34 (67) | SG (59.2±12.5) FG (61.5±13.9) | Prospective cohort | Medical ICU patients | MV for at least 48 hours | SG, 4 (3.5) FG, 8 (7.8) | DE and DT | Not specified | SG presented higher DE (17±6 vs 10±4, p<0.01) and DTF (32±22 |
| Spadaro | 31 (61) | 65±13 | Prospective cohort | Mixed ICU patients | MV for at least 48 hours at their first SBT | 69 (53–173) | DE | SBT failure, reintubation, or NIMV within 48 hours | SG presented higher DE (15.5 (11.7–23.0) vs 7.0 (6.0–14.7), p<0.0001) |
| Farghaly and Hasan | 31 (57) | SG, 65 (55–67.8) FG, 62.5 (55–70.7) | Prospective cohort | Respiratory ICU patients | Received MV and passed SBT | SG, 5 (4–5.7) FG, 5 (4–5.3) | DE and DT | Inability to maintain spontaneous breathing without any ventilatory support within 48 hours | SG presented higher DE (16 (11.4–18) vs 9.8 (8.8–12), p<0.0001) and DTF (58.9 (38–84.3) vs 30.8 (22.3–85), p=0.021) |
| Xu | 37 (60) | SG (71.2±8.3), FG (73.1±7.4) | Retrospective cohort | Respiratory ICU patients | COPD patients Received MV and underwent SBT | SG (10.2±3.2), FG (14.5±4.6) | DE | SBT failure, reintubation or NIMV within 48 hours | SG presented higher DE (12.6±3.4 vs 9.6±1.1, p<0.05) |
COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DD, diaphragmatic dysfunction; DE, diaphragmatic excursion; DT, diaphragm thickness; DTF, diaphragmatic thickening fraction; FG, failure group; ICU, intensive care unit; MV, mechanical ventilation; NIMV, non-invasive mechanical ventilation; SBT, spontaneous breathing trial; SG, success group.
Figure 2Assessment of risk of bias of studies: QUADAS-2 tool. QUADAS-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.
Figure 3Funnel plot comparison of diaphragmatic excursion between different weaning outcomes by MD. MD, mean difference.
Diagnostic performance of DE and DTF
| Author (year) | Patient category | Measures | Best cut-off to identity DD | Accuracy |
| Jiang | Medical ICU patients | DE (liver/spleen displacement) | 11 mm | Sensitivity of 84.4%, specificity of 82.6% |
| Kim | Medical ICU patients | DE | 14 mm (right) and 12 mm (left) | Sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 76%, |
| DiNino | Mixed ICU patients | Tdi and DTF | 30% | Sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 71%, |
| Ferrari | MV patients received tracheostomy in high-dependency unit | DTF | 36% | Sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 88% |
| Ali and Mohamad | Mixed ICU patients | Mean DE and DTF | MDE of 15 mm | Sensitivity of 88.7%, specificity of 84.3% |
| DTF of 30% | Sensitivity of 97.3%, specificity of 85.2% | |||
| Gong and Zhang | Mixed ICU patients | ΔDE (30 min to 10 min during SBT) | 1.75 mm | Sensitivity of 95.5%, specificity of 86.4% |
| Hu | Medical ICU patients | Mean DE and DTF | MDE of 11 mm | Sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 100% |
| DTF of 24% | Sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 79% | |||
| Spadaro | Mixed ICU patients | Diaphragmatic displacement | 14 mm | Sensitivity of 88.2%, specificity of 61.8%, |
| Farghaly and Hasan | Respiratory ICU patients | DE and DTF | DE 10.5 mm | Sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 71.2%, |
| DTF 34.5% | Sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 64.3%, | |||
| DE of 10.5 mm and Tdi at the end of inspiration of 21 mm | Sensitivity of 64.9%, specificity of 100% |
AUC, area under the curve; DD, diaphragmatic dysfunction; DE, diaphragmatic excursion; DTF, diaphragmatic thickening fraction; ICU, intensive care unit; MDE, mean diaphragmatic excursion; MV, mechanical ventilation; Tdi, thickness of diaphragm.
Figure 4Diaphragmatic excursion (DE) or diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) to predict weaning success.
Figure 5Summary of the receiver operating characteristic curve plotting sensitivity against specificity.
Figure 6Mean difference of diaphragmatic excursion between the weaning failure and weaning success groups. IV, inverse variance.
Figure 7The diaphragmatic thickening fraction mean difference between the weaning failure and weaning success groups. IV, inverse variance.
Figure 8Weaning failure between the diaphragmatic dysfunction and normal groups. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.