Taniguchi Corinne, Victor Elivane S, Pieri Talita, Henn Renata, Santana Carolina, Giovanetti Erica, Saghabi Cilene, Timenetsky Karina, Caserta Eid Raquel, Silva Eliezer, Matos Gustavo F J, Schettino Guilherme P P, Barbas Carmen S V
Adult ICU, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Avenida Albert Einstein, 627, 5 andar, São Paulo, SP, CEP:05652-900, Brazil.
Respiratory ICU, University of São Paulo Medical School, Avenida Dr Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar, 255, 6 andar, São Paulo, CEP: 05403-000, Brazil.
Crit Care. 2015 Jun 11;19(1):246. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-0978-6.
A recent meta-analysis showed that weaning with SmartCare™ (Dräger, Lübeck, Germany) significantly decreased weaning time in critically ill patients. However, its utility compared with respiratory physiotherapist-protocolized weaning is still a matter of debate. We hypothesized that weaning with SmartCare™ would be as effective as respiratory physiotherapy-driven weaning in critically ill patients.
Adult critically ill patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours in the adult intensive care unit of the Albert Einstein Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, were randomly assigned to be weaned either by progressive discontinuation of pressure support ventilation (PSV) with SmartCare™. Demographic data, respiratory function parameters, level of PSV, tidal volume (VT), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), inspired oxygen fraction (FIO2), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration (EtCO2) and airway occlusion pressure at 0.1 second (P0.1) were recorded at the beginning of the weaning process and before extubation. Mechanical ventilation time, weaning duration and rate of extubation failure were compared.
Seventy patients were enrolled 35 in each group. There was no difference between the two groups concerning age, sex or diagnosis at study entry. There was no difference in maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, forced vital capacity or rapid shallow breathing index at the beginning of the weaning trial. PEEP, VT, FIO2, SpO2, respiratory rate, EtCO2 and P0.1 were similar between the two groups, but PSV was not (median: 8 vs. 10 cmH2O; p =0.007). When the patients were ready for extubation, PSV (8 vs. 5 cmH2O; p =0.015) and PEEP (8 vs. 5 cmH2O; p <0.001) were significantly higher in the respiratory physiotherapy-driven weaning group. Total duration of mechanical ventilation (3.5 [2.0-7.3] days vs. 4.1 [2.7-7.1] days; p =0.467) and extubation failure (2 vs. 2; p =1.00) were similar between the two groups. Weaning duration was shorter in the respiratory physiotherapy-driven weaning group (60 [50-80] minutes vs. 110 [80-130] minutes; p <0.001).
A respiratory physiotherapy-driven weaning protocol can decrease weaning time compared with an automatic system, as it takes into account individual weaning difficulties.
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02122016 . Date of Registration: 27 August 2013.
最近一项荟萃分析表明,使用SmartCare™(德国吕贝克德尔格公司)进行撤机可显著缩短重症患者的撤机时间。然而,与呼吸物理治疗师制定的撤机方案相比,其效用仍存在争议。我们假设,在重症患者中,使用SmartCare™撤机与呼吸物理治疗驱动的撤机效果相同。
在巴西圣保罗阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦医院成人重症监护病房接受机械通气超过24小时的成年重症患者,被随机分配接受通过SmartCare™逐步停止压力支持通气(PSV)进行撤机。在撤机过程开始时和拔管前,记录人口统计学数据、呼吸功能参数、PSV水平、潮气量(VT)、呼气末正压(PEEP)、吸入氧分数(FIO2)、外周血氧饱和度(SpO2)、呼气末二氧化碳浓度(EtCO2)和0.1秒时的气道闭塞压(P0.1)。比较机械通气时间、撤机持续时间和拔管失败率。
共纳入70例患者,每组35例。两组在研究入组时的年龄、性别或诊断方面无差异。撤机试验开始时,最大吸气压力、最大呼气压力、用力肺活量或快速浅呼吸指数无差异。两组之间的PEEP、VT、FIO2、SpO2、呼吸频率、EtCO2和P0.1相似,但PSV不同(中位数:8 vs. 10 cmH2O;p =0.007)。当患者准备拔管时,呼吸物理治疗驱动的撤机组的PSV(8 vs. 5 cmH2O;p =0.015)和PEEP(8 vs. 5 cmH2O;p <0.001)显著更高。两组之间的机械通气总时长(3.5 [2.0 - 7.3]天 vs. 4.1 [2.7 - 7.1]天;p =0.467)和拔管失败率(2 vs. 2;p =1.00)相似。呼吸物理治疗驱动的撤机组的撤机持续时间更短(60 [50 - 80]分钟 vs. 110 [80 - 130]分钟;p <0.001)。
与自动系统相比,呼吸物理治疗驱动的撤机方案可减少撤机时间,因为它考虑到了个体撤机困难。
Clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT02122016。注册日期:2013年8月27日。