Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Karen E.A. Burns, Ibrahim Soliman, Neill K.J. Adhikari, Amer Zwein, Jessica T.Y. Wong, Carolina Gomez-Builes, Jose Augusto Pellegrini, Lu Chen, Nuttapol Rittayamai, Michael Sklar, Laurent J. Brochard, Jan O. Friedrich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Ovid Health Star, proceedings of five conferences (1990-2016), and reference lists for randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in intubated adults or children. Primary outcomes were initial SBT success, extubation success, or reintubation. Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. Results: We identified 31 trials (n = 3541 patients). Moderate-quality evidence showed that patients undergoing pressure support (PS) compared with T-piece SBTs (nine trials, n = 1901) were as likely to pass an initial SBT (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.11; I 2 = 77%) but more likely to be ultimately extubated successfully (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10; 11 trials, n = 1904; I 2 = 0%). Exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results for SBT and extubation outcomes suggested that PS (vs T-piece) SBTs also improved initial SBT success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12; I 2 = 0%). Limited data suggest that automatic tube compensation plus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs CPAP alone or PS increase SBT but not extubation success. Conclusions: Patients undergoing PS (vs T-piece) SBTs appear to be 6% (95% CI 2-10%) more likely to be extubated successfully and, if the results of an outlier trial are excluded, 6% (95% CI 1-12%) more likely to pass an SBT. Future trials should investigate patients for whom SBT and extubation outcomes are uncertain and compare techniques that maximize differences in support.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number127
JournalCritical Care
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Respiration
Confidence Intervals
Pressure
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Odds Ratio
Evidence-Based Medicine
MEDLINE
Health

Keywords

  • Extubation
  • Extubation outcome
  • Meta-analysis
  • Spontaneous breathing trial
  • Systematic review
  • Weaning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Burns, K. E. A., Soliman, I., Adhikari, N. K. J., Zwein, A., Wong, J. T. Y., Gomez-Builes, C., ... Friedrich, J. O. (2017). Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care, 21(1), [127]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x

Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Burns, Karen E.A.; Soliman, Ibrahim; Adhikari, Neill K.J.; Zwein, Amer; Wong, Jessica T.Y.; Gomez-Builes, Carolina; Pellegrini, Jose Augusto; Chen, Lu; Rittayamai, Nuttapol; Sklar, Michael; Brochard, Laurent J.; Friedrich, Jan O.

In: Critical Care, Vol. 21, No. 1, 127, 01.06.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Burns, KEA, Soliman, I, Adhikari, NKJ, Zwein, A, Wong, JTY, Gomez-Builes, C, Pellegrini, JA, Chen, L, Rittayamai, N, Sklar, M, Brochard, LJ & Friedrich, JO 2017, 'Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis', Critical Care, vol. 21, no. 1, 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x
Burns, Karen E.A. ; Soliman, Ibrahim ; Adhikari, Neill K.J. ; Zwein, Amer ; Wong, Jessica T.Y. ; Gomez-Builes, Carolina ; Pellegrini, Jose Augusto ; Chen, Lu ; Rittayamai, Nuttapol ; Sklar, Michael ; Brochard, Laurent J. ; Friedrich, Jan O. / Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Critical Care. 2017 ; Vol. 21, No. 1.
@article{e7444e055d12468c8c2b86c890ccfd58,
title = "Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Ovid Health Star, proceedings of five conferences (1990-2016), and reference lists for randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in intubated adults or children. Primary outcomes were initial SBT success, extubation success, or reintubation. Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. Results: We identified 31 trials (n = 3541 patients). Moderate-quality evidence showed that patients undergoing pressure support (PS) compared with T-piece SBTs (nine trials, n = 1901) were as likely to pass an initial SBT (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.11; I 2 = 77{\%}) but more likely to be ultimately extubated successfully (RR 1.06, 95{\%} CI 1.02-1.10; 11 trials, n = 1904; I 2 = 0{\%}). Exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results for SBT and extubation outcomes suggested that PS (vs T-piece) SBTs also improved initial SBT success (RR 1.06, 95{\%} CI 1.01-1.12; I 2 = 0{\%}). Limited data suggest that automatic tube compensation plus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs CPAP alone or PS increase SBT but not extubation success. Conclusions: Patients undergoing PS (vs T-piece) SBTs appear to be 6{\%} (95{\%} CI 2-10{\%}) more likely to be extubated successfully and, if the results of an outlier trial are excluded, 6{\%} (95{\%} CI 1-12{\%}) more likely to pass an SBT. Future trials should investigate patients for whom SBT and extubation outcomes are uncertain and compare techniques that maximize differences in support.",
keywords = "Extubation, Extubation outcome, Meta-analysis, Spontaneous breathing trial, Systematic review, Weaning",
author = "Burns, {Karen E.A.} and Ibrahim Soliman and Adhikari, {Neill K.J.} and Amer Zwein and Wong, {Jessica T.Y.} and Carolina Gomez-Builes and Pellegrini, {Jose Augusto} and Lu Chen and Nuttapol Rittayamai and Michael Sklar and Brochard, {Laurent J.} and Friedrich, {Jan O.}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1466-609X",
publisher = "Springer Science + Business Media",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Burns, Karen E.A.

AU - Soliman, Ibrahim

AU - Adhikari, Neill K.J.

AU - Zwein, Amer

AU - Wong, Jessica T.Y.

AU - Gomez-Builes, Carolina

AU - Pellegrini, Jose Augusto

AU - Chen, Lu

AU - Rittayamai, Nuttapol

AU - Sklar, Michael

AU - Brochard, Laurent J.

AU - Friedrich, Jan O.

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Background: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Ovid Health Star, proceedings of five conferences (1990-2016), and reference lists for randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in intubated adults or children. Primary outcomes were initial SBT success, extubation success, or reintubation. Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. Results: We identified 31 trials (n = 3541 patients). Moderate-quality evidence showed that patients undergoing pressure support (PS) compared with T-piece SBTs (nine trials, n = 1901) were as likely to pass an initial SBT (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.11; I 2 = 77%) but more likely to be ultimately extubated successfully (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10; 11 trials, n = 1904; I 2 = 0%). Exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results for SBT and extubation outcomes suggested that PS (vs T-piece) SBTs also improved initial SBT success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12; I 2 = 0%). Limited data suggest that automatic tube compensation plus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs CPAP alone or PS increase SBT but not extubation success. Conclusions: Patients undergoing PS (vs T-piece) SBTs appear to be 6% (95% CI 2-10%) more likely to be extubated successfully and, if the results of an outlier trial are excluded, 6% (95% CI 1-12%) more likely to pass an SBT. Future trials should investigate patients for whom SBT and extubation outcomes are uncertain and compare techniques that maximize differences in support.

AB - Background: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Ovid Health Star, proceedings of five conferences (1990-2016), and reference lists for randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in intubated adults or children. Primary outcomes were initial SBT success, extubation success, or reintubation. Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. Results: We identified 31 trials (n = 3541 patients). Moderate-quality evidence showed that patients undergoing pressure support (PS) compared with T-piece SBTs (nine trials, n = 1901) were as likely to pass an initial SBT (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.11; I 2 = 77%) but more likely to be ultimately extubated successfully (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10; 11 trials, n = 1904; I 2 = 0%). Exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results for SBT and extubation outcomes suggested that PS (vs T-piece) SBTs also improved initial SBT success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12; I 2 = 0%). Limited data suggest that automatic tube compensation plus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs CPAP alone or PS increase SBT but not extubation success. Conclusions: Patients undergoing PS (vs T-piece) SBTs appear to be 6% (95% CI 2-10%) more likely to be extubated successfully and, if the results of an outlier trial are excluded, 6% (95% CI 1-12%) more likely to pass an SBT. Future trials should investigate patients for whom SBT and extubation outcomes are uncertain and compare techniques that maximize differences in support.

KW - Extubation

KW - Extubation outcome

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Spontaneous breathing trial

KW - Systematic review

KW - Weaning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020049208&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020049208&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x

DO - 10.1186/s13054-017-1698-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 28576127

AN - SCOPUS:85020049208

VL - 21

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1466-609X

IS - 1

M1 - 127

ER -