Bosma Karen J, Read Brooke A, Bahrgard Nikoo Mohammad J, Jones Philip M, Priestap Fran A, Lewis James F
1London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada. 2Department of Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 2016 Jun;44(6):1098-108. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001600.
Despite protocols incorporating spontaneous breathing trials, 31% of ICU patients experience difficult or prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation. Nonfatiguing modes such as pressure support ventilation are recommended. Proportional assist ventilation provides assistance in proportion to patient effort, which may optimize weaning. However, it is not known how proportional assist ventilation performs relative to pressure support ventilation over a prolonged period in the complex ICU setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the physiologic and clinical performance (failure rate), safety, and feasibility of protocols using daily spontaneous breathing trial plus pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation until ventilation discontinuation.
Single-center, unblinded pilot randomized controlled trial.
Medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary-care hospital.
Adult patients intubated greater than 36 hours were randomized if they met eligibility criteria for partial ventilatory support, tolerated pressure support ventilation greater than or equal to 30 minutes, and either failed or did not meet criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial.
Patients were randomized to the pressure support ventilation or proportional assist ventilation protocol (PAV+, Puritan Bennett 840; Covidien, Boulder, CO). Both protocols used progressive decreases in level of assistance as tolerated, coupled with daily assessment for spontaneous breathing trials.
Of 54 patients randomized, outcome data are available for 50 patients; 27 were randomized to receive proportional assist ventilation and 23 to receive pressure support ventilation. There were no adverse events linked to the study interventions, and protocol violations were infrequent. Recruitment was slower than projected (1.3 patients per month). The median (interquartile range) time from randomization to successful extubation was 3.9 days (2.8-8.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 4.9 days (2.9-26.3 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.39). Time to live ICU discharge was 7.3 days (5.2-11.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 12.4 days (7.5-30.8 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.03).
This pilot study demonstrates the utility, safety, and feasibility of the weaning protocols and provides important information to guide the design of a future randomized controlled trial comparing weaning from mechanical ventilation on pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation.
尽管有包含自主呼吸试验的方案,但仍有31%的重症监护病房(ICU)患者在机械通气撤机时遇到困难或撤机时间延长。推荐使用如压力支持通气等非疲劳性模式。比例辅助通气按患者用力程度提供辅助,这可能优化撤机过程。然而,在复杂的ICU环境中,长期来看比例辅助通气与压力支持通气相比表现如何尚不清楚。本研究的目的是比较每日自主呼吸试验加压力支持通气与比例辅助通气直至停止通气的方案在生理和临床性能(失败率)、安全性及可行性方面的差异。
单中心、非盲法试点随机对照试验。
一家三级医院的内科-外科ICU。
插管超过36小时的成年患者,若符合部分通气支持的入选标准、能耐受压力支持通气30分钟及以上、自主呼吸试验失败或不符合标准,则被随机分组。
患者被随机分为压力支持通气组或比例辅助通气组(PAV +,伟康840;柯惠医疗,科罗拉多州博尔德市)。两种方案均根据耐受情况逐渐降低辅助水平,并每日评估自主呼吸试验。
54例随机分组患者中,50例有结局数据;27例被随机分配接受比例辅助通气,23例接受压力支持通气。未发现与研究干预相关的不良事件,违反方案的情况很少。入组速度比预期慢(每月1.3例患者)。比例辅助通气组从随机分组到成功拔管的中位(四分位间距)时间为3.9天(2.8 - 8.4天),压力支持通气组为4.9天(2.9 - 26.3天)(p = 0.39)。比例辅助通气组至离开ICU出院的时间为7.3天(5.2 - 11.4天),压力支持通气组为12.4天(7.5 - 30.8天)(p = 0.03)。
这项试点研究证明了撤机方案的实用性、安全性和可行性,并为指导未来比较压力支持通气与比例辅助通气撤机的随机对照试验设计提供了重要信息。