Suppr超能文献

一项关于机械通气撤机的方案指导与医生指导的随机对照试验。

A randomized, controlled trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation.

作者信息

Kollef M H, Shapiro S D, Silver P, St John R E, Prentice D, Sauer S, Ahrens T S, Shannon W, Baker-Clinkscale D

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 1997 Apr;25(4):567-74. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199704000-00004.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare a practice of protocol-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation implemented by nurses and respiratory therapists with traditional physician-directed weaning.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Medical and surgical intensive care units in two university-affiliated teaching hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 357).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either protocol-directed (n = 179) or physician-directed (n = 178) weaning from mechanical ventilation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome measure was the duration of mechanical ventilation from tracheal intubation until discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Other outcome measures included need for reintubation, length of hospital stay, hospital mortality rate, and hospital costs. The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 35 hrs for the protocol-directed group (first quartile 15 hrs; third quartile 114 hrs) compared with 44 hrs for the physician-directed group (first quartile 21 hrs; third quartile 209 hrs). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that patients randomized to protocol-directed weaning had significantly shorter durations of mechanical ventilation compared with patients randomized to physician-directed weaning (chi 2 = 3.62, p = .057, log-rank test; chi 2 = 5.12, p = .024, Wilcoxon test). Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis, adjusting for other covariates, showed that the rate of successful weaning was significantly greater for patients receiving protocol-directed weaning compared with patients receiving physician-directed weaning (risk ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.50; p = .039). The hospital mortality rates for the two treatment groups were similar (protocol-directed 22.3% vs. physician-directed 23.6%; p = .779). Hospital cost savings for patients in the protocol-directed group were $42,960 compared with hospital costs for patients in the physician-directed group.

CONCLUSION

Protocol-guided weaning of mechanical ventilation, as performed by nurses and respiratory therapists, is safe and led to extubation more rapidly than physician-directed weaning.

摘要

目的

比较护士和呼吸治疗师实施的机械通气方案指导下撤机与传统医生指导下撤机的效果。

设计

随机对照试验。

地点

两所大学附属医院的内科和外科重症监护病房。

患者

需要机械通气的患者(n = 357)。

干预措施

患者被随机分配接受机械通气方案指导下撤机(n = 179)或医生指导下撤机(n = 178)。

测量指标及主要结果

主要结局指标是从气管插管至机械通气停止的机械通气持续时间。其他结局指标包括再次插管需求、住院时间、医院死亡率和医院费用。方案指导组机械通气的中位持续时间为35小时(第一四分位数15小时;第三四分位数114小时),而医生指导组为44小时(第一四分位数21小时;第三四分位数209小时)。Kaplan-Meier分析表明,与随机接受医生指导下撤机的患者相比,随机接受方案指导下撤机的患者机械通气持续时间显著缩短(卡方检验=3.62,p = 0.057,对数秩检验;卡方检验=5.12,p = 0.024,Wilcoxon检验)。经其他协变量调整的Cox比例风险回归分析显示,与接受医生指导下撤机的患者相比,接受方案指导下撤机的患者成功撤机率显著更高(风险比1.31;95%置信区间1.15至1.50;p = 0.039)。两个治疗组的医院死亡率相似(方案指导组22.3% vs. 医生指导组23.6%;p = 0.779)。与医生指导组患者的医院费用相比,方案指导组患者节省医院费用42,960美元。

结论

由护士和呼吸治疗师进行的方案指导下机械通气撤机是安全的,且比医生指导下撤机能更快实现拔管。

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