Cargando…
Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial
BACKGROUND: Weaning protocols expedite extubation in mechanically ventilated patients, yet the literature investigating the application in tracheostomized patients remains scarce. The primary objective of this parallel randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) was to assess the feasibility and safety...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5778092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29356958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0354-1 |
_version_ | 1783294289977016320 |
---|---|
author | Fagoni, Nazzareno Piva, Simone Peli, Elena Turla, Fabio Pecci, Elisabetta Gualdoni, Livio Fiorese, Bertilla Rasulo, Frank Latronico, Nicola |
author_facet | Fagoni, Nazzareno Piva, Simone Peli, Elena Turla, Fabio Pecci, Elisabetta Gualdoni, Livio Fiorese, Bertilla Rasulo, Frank Latronico, Nicola |
author_sort | Fagoni, Nazzareno |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Weaning protocols expedite extubation in mechanically ventilated patients, yet the literature investigating the application in tracheostomized patients remains scarce. The primary objective of this parallel randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) was to assess the feasibility and safety of a nurse-led weaning protocol (protocol) compared to weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment (control) in tracheostomized critically ill patients. RESULTS: We enrolled 65 patients, 27 were in the protocol group and 38 in the control group. Of 27 patients in the protocol group, 1 (3.7%) died in the ICU, 24 (88.9%) were successfully weaned from tracheostomy, and 2 (7.4%) were transferred still on the ventilator. Of 38 patients in the control group, 2 (5.3%) died in the ICU, 22 (57.9%) were successfully weaned from tracheostomy, and 14 were transferred still on the ventilator (36.8%). Risk of being discharged from the ICU on the ventilator was higher in the control group (relative risk: 1.5, IC 95% 1.14–2.01). Concerning safety and feasibility, no patients were excluded after randomization. There was no crossover between the two study arms nor missing data, and no severe adverse event related to the study protocol application was recorded by the staff. Weaning time and rate of successful weaning were not different in the protocol group compared to the control group (long-rank test, p = 0.31 for MV duration, p = 0.45 for weaning time). Based on our results and assuming a 30% reduction of the weaning time for the protocol group, 280 patients would be needed for a RCT to establish efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot RCT we demonstrated that a nurse-led weaning protocol from tracheostomy was feasible and safe. A larger RCT is justified to assess efficacy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0354-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5778092 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57780922018-02-01 Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial Fagoni, Nazzareno Piva, Simone Peli, Elena Turla, Fabio Pecci, Elisabetta Gualdoni, Livio Fiorese, Bertilla Rasulo, Frank Latronico, Nicola Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Weaning protocols expedite extubation in mechanically ventilated patients, yet the literature investigating the application in tracheostomized patients remains scarce. The primary objective of this parallel randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) was to assess the feasibility and safety of a nurse-led weaning protocol (protocol) compared to weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment (control) in tracheostomized critically ill patients. RESULTS: We enrolled 65 patients, 27 were in the protocol group and 38 in the control group. Of 27 patients in the protocol group, 1 (3.7%) died in the ICU, 24 (88.9%) were successfully weaned from tracheostomy, and 2 (7.4%) were transferred still on the ventilator. Of 38 patients in the control group, 2 (5.3%) died in the ICU, 22 (57.9%) were successfully weaned from tracheostomy, and 14 were transferred still on the ventilator (36.8%). Risk of being discharged from the ICU on the ventilator was higher in the control group (relative risk: 1.5, IC 95% 1.14–2.01). Concerning safety and feasibility, no patients were excluded after randomization. There was no crossover between the two study arms nor missing data, and no severe adverse event related to the study protocol application was recorded by the staff. Weaning time and rate of successful weaning were not different in the protocol group compared to the control group (long-rank test, p = 0.31 for MV duration, p = 0.45 for weaning time). Based on our results and assuming a 30% reduction of the weaning time for the protocol group, 280 patients would be needed for a RCT to establish efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot RCT we demonstrated that a nurse-led weaning protocol from tracheostomy was feasible and safe. A larger RCT is justified to assess efficacy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0354-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5778092/ /pubmed/29356958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0354-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Fagoni, Nazzareno Piva, Simone Peli, Elena Turla, Fabio Pecci, Elisabetta Gualdoni, Livio Fiorese, Bertilla Rasulo, Frank Latronico, Nicola Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
title | Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_full | Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_short | Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_sort | comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician’s clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5778092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29356958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0354-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fagoninazzareno comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT pivasimone comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT pelielena comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT turlafabio comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT peccielisabetta comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT gualdonilivio comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT fioresebertilla comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT rasulofrank comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT latroniconicola comparisonbetweenanurseledweaningprotocolandweaningbasedonphysiciansclinicaljudgmentintracheostomizedcriticallyillpatientsapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial |