Cargando…
Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to clarify the preferable SBT (T-piece or pressure support ventilation [PSV]). METHODS: W...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045460/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32102693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2764-3 |
_version_ | 1783501779284000768 |
---|---|
author | Li, Yuting Li, Hongxiang Zhang, Dong |
author_facet | Li, Yuting Li, Hongxiang Zhang, Dong |
author_sort | Li, Yuting |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to clarify the preferable SBT (T-piece or pressure support ventilation [PSV]). METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to the 31st of July 2019. We included RCTs involving adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent at least two different SBT methods. All authors reported our primary outcome of successful extubation rate and clearly compared PS versus T-piece with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 3165 patients were included. The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the successful extubation rate between the T-piece group and PS group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78–1.07; P = 0.27; I(2) = 79%). In addition, compared with the PS group, the T-piece group showed no significant difference in the rate of reintubation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78–1.26; P = 0.95; I(2) = 5%), ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.83–1.80; P = 0.30; I(2) = 0%), hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.99–1.87; P = 0.06; I(2) = 19%), ICU length of stay (mean difference = − 0.10; 95% CI, − 0.59 to 0.39; P = 0.69; I(2) = 13%), and hospital length of stay (mean difference = − 0.82;95% CI, − 2.2 to 0.55; P = 0.24; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: T-piece and PSV as SBTs are considered to have comparable predictive power of successful extubation in critically ill patients. The analysis of secondary outcomes also shows no significant difference in the rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality between the two groups. Further randomized controlled studies of SBTs are still required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7045460 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70454602020-03-03 Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Li, Yuting Li, Hongxiang Zhang, Dong Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to clarify the preferable SBT (T-piece or pressure support ventilation [PSV]). METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to the 31st of July 2019. We included RCTs involving adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent at least two different SBT methods. All authors reported our primary outcome of successful extubation rate and clearly compared PS versus T-piece with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 3165 patients were included. The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the successful extubation rate between the T-piece group and PS group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78–1.07; P = 0.27; I(2) = 79%). In addition, compared with the PS group, the T-piece group showed no significant difference in the rate of reintubation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78–1.26; P = 0.95; I(2) = 5%), ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.83–1.80; P = 0.30; I(2) = 0%), hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.99–1.87; P = 0.06; I(2) = 19%), ICU length of stay (mean difference = − 0.10; 95% CI, − 0.59 to 0.39; P = 0.69; I(2) = 13%), and hospital length of stay (mean difference = − 0.82;95% CI, − 2.2 to 0.55; P = 0.24; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: T-piece and PSV as SBTs are considered to have comparable predictive power of successful extubation in critically ill patients. The analysis of secondary outcomes also shows no significant difference in the rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality between the two groups. Further randomized controlled studies of SBTs are still required. BioMed Central 2020-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7045460/ /pubmed/32102693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2764-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Li, Yuting Li, Hongxiang Zhang, Dong Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of t-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045460/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32102693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2764-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liyuting comparisonoftpieceandpressuresupportventilationasspontaneousbreathingtrialsincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lihongxiang comparisonoftpieceandpressuresupportventilationasspontaneousbreathingtrialsincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangdong comparisonoftpieceandpressuresupportventilationasspontaneousbreathingtrialsincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |