Spontaneous breathing trial with pressure support on positive end-expiratory pressure and extensive use of non-invasive ventilation versus T-piece in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Mehdi Mezidi, Hodane Yonis, Louis Chauvelot, Guillaume Deniel, François Dhelft, Maxime Gaillet, Ines Noirot, Laure Folliet, Paul Chabert, Guillaume David, William Danjou, Loredana Baboi, Clotilde Bettinger, Pauline Bernon, Mehdi Girard, Judith Provoost, Alwin Bazzani, Laurent Bitker, Jean-Christophe Richard
{"title":"Spontaneous breathing trial with pressure support on positive end-expiratory pressure and extensive use of non-invasive ventilation versus T-piece in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"Mehdi Mezidi, Hodane Yonis, Louis Chauvelot, Guillaume Deniel, François Dhelft, Maxime Gaillet, Ines Noirot, Laure Folliet, Paul Chabert, Guillaume David, William Danjou, Loredana Baboi, Clotilde Bettinger, Pauline Bernon, Mehdi Girard, Judith Provoost, Alwin Bazzani, Laurent Bitker, Jean-Christophe Richard","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01290-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>The aim of this study is to assess whether a strategy combining spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with both pressure support (PS) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and extended use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (extensively-assisted weaning) would shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with SBT with T-piece (TP) and post-extubation NIV performed in selected patients as advocated by guidelines (standard weaning), in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>The study is a single-center prospective open label, randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups and balanced randomization with a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were intubated patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h who failed their first SBT using TP. In the extensively-assisted weaning group, SBT was performed with PS (7 cmH<sub>2</sub>O) and PEEP (5 cmH<sub>2</sub>O). In case of SBT success, an additional SBT with TP was performed. Failure of this SBT-TP was an additional criterion for post-extubation NIV in this group in addition to other recommended criteria. In the standard weaning group, SBT was performed with TP, and NIV was performed according to international guidelines. The primary outcome criterion was the time between inclusion and successful extubation evaluated with a Cox model with adjustment on randomization strata.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>From May 2019 to March 2023, 98 patients were included and randomized in the study (49 in each group). Four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (2 in both groups); therefore, 47 patients were analyzed in each group. The extensively-assisted weaning group had a higher median age (68 [58–73] vs. 62 [55–71] yrs.) and similar sex ratio (62% male vs. 57%). Time until successful extubation was not significantly different between extensively-assisted and standard weaning groups (median, 172 [50–436] vs. 95 [47–232] hours, Cox hazard ratio for successful extubation, 0.88 [95% confidence interval: 0.55–1.42] using the standard weaning group as a reference; <i>p</i> = 0.60). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>An extensively-assisted weaning strategy did not lead to a shorter time to successful extubation than a standard weaning strategy.</p><p><i>Trial registration</i> The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03861117), on March 1, 2019, before the inclusion of the first patient. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03861117.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01290-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study is to assess whether a strategy combining spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with both pressure support (PS) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and extended use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (extensively-assisted weaning) would shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with SBT with T-piece (TP) and post-extubation NIV performed in selected patients as advocated by guidelines (standard weaning), in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation.

Methods

The study is a single-center prospective open label, randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups and balanced randomization with a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were intubated patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h who failed their first SBT using TP. In the extensively-assisted weaning group, SBT was performed with PS (7 cmH2O) and PEEP (5 cmH2O). In case of SBT success, an additional SBT with TP was performed. Failure of this SBT-TP was an additional criterion for post-extubation NIV in this group in addition to other recommended criteria. In the standard weaning group, SBT was performed with TP, and NIV was performed according to international guidelines. The primary outcome criterion was the time between inclusion and successful extubation evaluated with a Cox model with adjustment on randomization strata.

Results

From May 2019 to March 2023, 98 patients were included and randomized in the study (49 in each group). Four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (2 in both groups); therefore, 47 patients were analyzed in each group. The extensively-assisted weaning group had a higher median age (68 [58–73] vs. 62 [55–71] yrs.) and similar sex ratio (62% male vs. 57%). Time until successful extubation was not significantly different between extensively-assisted and standard weaning groups (median, 172 [50–436] vs. 95 [47–232] hours, Cox hazard ratio for successful extubation, 0.88 [95% confidence interval: 0.55–1.42] using the standard weaning group as a reference; p = 0.60). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion

An extensively-assisted weaning strategy did not lead to a shorter time to successful extubation than a standard weaning strategy.

Trial registration The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03861117), on March 1, 2019, before the inclusion of the first patient. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03861117.

Abstract Image

在机械通气难以断奶的患者中,使用呼气末正压压力支持和广泛使用无创通气的自发呼吸试验与 T-piece:随机对照试验
背景 本研究旨在评估在机械通气难以断奶的患者中,与指南提倡的在选定患者中使用带 T-piece(TP)的自主呼吸试验(SBT)和拔管后 NIV(标准断奶)相比,同时使用压力支持(PS)和呼气末正压(PEEP)的自主呼吸试验(SBT)和延长拔管后无创通气(NIV)的策略(广泛辅助断奶)是否能缩短患者成功拔管的时间。方法该研究是一项单中心前瞻性开放标签随机对照优效试验,分为两个平行组,以 1:1 的比例均衡随机分组。符合条件的患者均为插管机械通气超过 24 小时且使用 TP 首次 SBT 失败的患者。在广泛辅助断流组,SBT 在 PS(7 cmH2O)和 PEEP(5 cmH2O)的条件下进行。如果 SBT 成功,则再使用 TP 进行一次 SBT。除其他推荐标准外,SBT-TP 失败也是该组患者拔管后 NIV 的附加标准。在标准断流组中,SBT 使用 TP,NIV 则根据国际指南进行。主要结局标准是纳入患者到成功拔管之间的时间,采用 Cox 模型进行评估,并对随机分组进行调整。有四名患者被排除在意向治疗人群之外(两组均有两名患者);因此,每组分析了 47 名患者。广泛辅助断流组的中位年龄较高(68 [58-73] 岁对 62 [55-71] 岁),性别比例相似(62% 为男性对 57%)。广泛辅助断奶组和标准断奶组的成功拔管时间无显著差异(中位数为 172 [50-436] 小时 vs. 95 [47-232] 小时,以标准断奶组为参照,成功拔管的 Cox 危险比为 0.88 [95% 置信区间:0.55-1.42];P = 0.60)。所有次要结果在组间无明显差异。结论与标准断奶策略相比,广泛辅助断奶策略不会导致更短的成功拔管时间。试验注册 该试验于2019年3月1日在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT03861117)上注册,在纳入第一例患者之前。https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03861117。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信