Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Ireland.
School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, England.
JAMA. 2021 Aug 3;326(5):401-410. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.10296.
There is limited evidence on the optimal strategy for liberating infants and children from invasive mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit.
To determine if a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted that included 17 hospital sites (18 pediatric intensive care units) in the UK sequentially randomized from usual care to the protocol intervention. From February 2018 to October 2019, 8843 critically ill infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation were recruited. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019.
Pediatric intensive care units provided usual care (n = 4155 infants and children) or a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention (n = 4688 infants and children) that consisted of assessment of sedation level, daily screening for readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial, a spontaneous breathing trial to test ventilator liberation potential, and daily rounds to review sedation and readiness screening and set patient-relevant targets.
The primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a hazard ratio (with a 95% CI) adjusted for calendar time and cluster (hospital site) for infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.
There were a total of 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [interquartile range, 1 to 46 months]; 42% were female) who completed the trial. There was a significantly shorter median time to successful extubation for the protocol intervention compared with usual care (64.8 hours vs 66.2 hours, respectively; adjusted median difference, -6.1 hours [interquartile range, -8.2 to -5.3 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20], P = .02). The serious adverse event of hypoxia occurred in 9 (0.2%) infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 (0.3%) for usual care; nonvascular device dislodgement occurred in 2 (0.04%) vs 7 (0.1%), respectively.
Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.
isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143.
在儿科重症监护病房中,从有创机械通气中解放婴儿和儿童的最佳策略证据有限。
确定镇静和呼吸机解放方案干预是否可以减少预计需要长时间机械通气的婴儿和儿童的有创机械通气持续时间。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项实用的多中心、阶梯式、群组随机临床试验,纳入了英国的 17 个医院(18 个儿科重症监护病房),这些医院按常规护理顺序随机分为方案干预组。从 2018 年 2 月至 2019 年 10 月,共招募了 8843 名预计需要长时间机械通气的危重症婴儿和儿童。最后一次随访日期为 2019 年 11 月 11 日。
儿科重症监护病房提供常规护理(n=4155 名婴儿和儿童)或镇静和呼吸机解放方案干预(n=4688 名婴儿和儿童),包括镇静水平评估、每日筛查准备进行自主呼吸试验、自主呼吸试验以测试呼吸机解放潜能,以及每日查房以审查镇静和准备筛查并设定与患者相关的目标。
主要结局是从开始通气到第一次成功拔管的有创机械通气持续时间。对预计需要长时间机械通气的婴儿和儿童,治疗效果的主要估计值是调整了日历时间和群组(医院)的危险比(95%CI)。
共有 8843 名婴儿和儿童(中位年龄 8 个月[四分位距 1 至 46 个月];42%为女性)完成了试验。与常规护理相比,方案干预组的中位成功拔管时间明显更短(分别为 64.8 小时和 66.2 小时;调整后中位差异,-6.1 小时[四分位距,-8.2 至-5.3 小时];调整后的危险比,1.11[95%CI,1.02 至 1.20],P=0.02)。方案干预组有 9 名(0.2%)婴儿和儿童发生严重不良事件(缺氧),而常规护理组有 11 名(0.3%);非血管装置移位分别发生在 2 名(0.04%)和 7 名(0.1%)婴儿和儿童中。
在预计需要长时间机械通气的婴儿和儿童中,与常规护理相比,镇静和呼吸机解放方案干预可显著缩短首次成功拔管的时间。然而,该效果大小的临床重要性尚不确定。
国际标准随机对照试验号(ISRCTN):ISRCTN85211524。