Suppr超能文献

采用各种自主呼吸试验技术的呼吸努力。一项生理学荟萃分析。

Effort to Breathe with Various Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques. A Physiologic Meta-analysis.

机构信息

1 Department of Anesthesiology and.

2 Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun 1;195(11):1477-1485. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201607-1338OC.

Abstract

RATIONALE

Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are designed to simulate conditions after extubation, and it is essential to understand the physiologic impact of different methods.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and pooled measures reflecting patient respiratory effort among studies comparing SBT methods in a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science from inception to January 2016 to identify randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials reporting physiologic measurements of respiratory effort (pressure-time product) or work of breathing during at least two SBT techniques. Secondary outcomes included the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), and effort measured before and after extubation. The quality of physiologic measurement and research design was appraised for each study. Outcomes were analyzed using ratio of means.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among 4,138 citations, 16 studies (n = 239) were included. Compared with T-piece, pressure support ventilation significantly reduced work by 30% (ratio of means [RoM], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.86), effort by 30% (RoM, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82), and RSBI by 20% (RoM, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). Continuous positive airway pressure had significantly lower pressure-time product by 18% (RoM, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.999) compared with T-piece, and reduced RSBI by 16% (RoM, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95). Studies comparing SBTs with the postextubation period demonstrated that pressure support induced significantly lower effort and RSBI; T-piece reduced effort, but not the work, compared with postextubation. Work, effort, and RSBI measured while intubated on the ventilator with continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm HO were no different than extubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure support reduces respiratory effort compared with T-piece. Continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm HO and T-piece more accurately reflect the physiologic conditions after extubation.

摘要

背景

自主呼吸试验(SBT)旨在模拟拔管后的情况,因此了解不同方法的生理影响至关重要。

目的

我们进行了一项系统评价,并通过荟萃分析汇集了比较 SBT 方法的研究中反映患者呼吸努力的测量值。

方法

我们检索了 Medline、Excerpta Medica Database 和 Web of Science 从建库到 2016 年 1 月的文献,以确定报告至少两种 SBT 技术时呼吸努力(压力-时间乘积)或呼吸功的生理测量值的随机和非随机临床试验。次要结局包括快速浅呼吸指数(RSBI)以及拔管前后的努力测量值。对每项研究的生理测量和研究设计质量进行评估。使用均值比分析结局。

测量值和主要结果

在 4138 条引文 中,有 16 项研究(n=239)纳入分析。与 T 型管相比,压力支持通气可使呼吸功降低 30%(均数比[RoM],0.70;95%置信区间[CI],0.57-0.86)、呼吸努力降低 30%(RoM,0.70;95%CI,0.60-0.82)和 RSBI 降低 20%(RoM,0.80;95%CI,0.75-0.86)。与 T 型管相比,持续气道正压通气的压力-时间乘积显著降低 18%(RoM,0.82;95%CI,0.68-0.999),且 RSBI 降低 16%(RoM,0.84;95%CI,0.74-0.95)。与拔管后比较,比较 SBT 与拔管后期间的研究显示,压力支持通气可显著降低呼吸努力和 RSBI;T 型管降低呼吸努力,但不降低呼吸功,与拔管后相比。在呼吸机上使用 0 cm HO 的持续气道正压通气时,插管期间的呼吸功、呼吸努力和 RSBI 与拔管时无差异。

结论

与 T 型管相比,压力支持通气可降低呼吸努力。0 cm HO 的持续气道正压通气和 T 型管更准确地反映了拔管后的生理情况。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验