Departments of Critical Care Medicine and Medicine, Unity Health Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, 4-045 Donnelly Wing, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Crit Care. 2024 Jun 8;28(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04958-4.
The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative SBT techniques.
We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2023 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults and children and reported initial SBT success, successful extubation, reintubation (primary outcomes) and mortality (ICU, hospital, most protracted; secondary outcome) rates. Two reviewers screened, reviewed full-texts, and abstracted data. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.
We included 40 RCTs (6716 patients). Pressure Support (PS) versus T-piece SBTs was the most common comparison. Initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS [risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05-1.11)], PS/automatic tube compensation (ATC) [1.12 (1.01 -1.25), high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) [1.07 (1.00-1.13) (all moderate certainty), and ATC [RR 1.11, (1.03-1.20); low certainty] SBTs compared to T-piece SBTs. Similarly, initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS, ATC, and PS/ATC SBTs compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) SBTs. Successful extubation rates were increased with PS [RR 1.06, (1.03-1.09); high certainty], ATC [RR 1.13, (1.05-1.21); moderate certainty], and HFNC [RR 1.06, (1.02-1.11); high certainty] SBTs, compared to T-piece SBTs. There was little to no difference in reintubation rates with PS (vs. T-piece) SBTs [RR 1.05, (0.91-1.21); low certainty], but increased reintubation rates with PS [RR 2.84, (1.61-5.03); moderate certainty] and ATC [RR 2.95 (1.57-5.56); moderate certainty] SBTs compared to HFNC SBTs.
SBTs conducted with pressure augmentation (PS, ATC, PS/ATC) versus without (T-piece, CPAP) increased initial successful SBT and successful extubation rates. Although SBTs conducted with PS or ATC versus HFNC increased reintubation rates, this was not the case for PS versus T-piece SBTs.
目前尚不清楚哪种自主呼吸试验(SBT)技术能最好地平衡成功拔管与再插管风险。我们旨在确定替代 SBT 技术的相对疗效和安全性。
我们检索了 Medline、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库,从建库至 2023 年 2 月,以确定比较危重症成人和儿童 SBT 技术的随机或半随机试验,并报告初始 SBT 成功、成功拔管、再插管(主要结局)和死亡率(ICU、医院、最长时间;次要结局)率。两名评审员筛选、审查全文并提取数据。我们进行了似然比随机效应网络荟萃分析。
我们纳入了 40 项 RCT(6716 例患者)。压力支持(PS)与 T 型管 SBT 是最常见的比较。PS 与 T 型管 SBT 相比,初始 SBT 成功率更高[风险比(RR)1.08,95%置信区间(CI)(1.05-1.11)],PS/自动管补偿(ATC)[1.12(1.01-1.25)]、高流量鼻导管(HFNC)[1.07(1.00-1.13)](均为中度确定性)和 ATC[RR 1.11,(1.03-1.20);低确定性]SBT 也是如此。同样,与 T 型管 SBT 相比,PS、ATC 和 PS/ATC SBT 初始 SBT 成功率更高。与 T 型管 SBT 相比,PS[RR 1.06,(1.03-1.09);高确定性]、ATC[RR 1.13,(1.05-1.21);中度确定性]和 HFNC[RR 1.06,(1.02-1.11);高确定性]SBT 拔管成功率更高。PS(与 T 型管 SBT 相比)[RR 1.05,(0.91-1.21);低确定性]和 ATC[RR 1.05,(0.91-1.21);低确定性]SBT 再插管率差异无统计学意义,但与 HFNC SBT 相比,PS[RR 2.84,(1.61-5.03);中度确定性]和 ATC[RR 2.95(1.57-5.56);中度确定性]SBT 再插管率更高。
与无压力增强(T 型管、CPAP)的 SBT 相比,采用压力增强(PS、ATC、PS/ATC)的 SBT 可提高初始 SBT 和成功拔管率。尽管 PS 或 ATC 与 HFNC 相比,SBT 再插管率更高,但 PS 与 T 型管 SBT 之间并非如此。