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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yuting, Li, Hongxiang, Zhang, Dong
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