4.6 Article

Reconnection to mechanical ventilation for 1 h after a successful spontaneous breathing trial reduces reintubation in critically ill patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 11, 页码 1660-1667

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-017-4911-0

关键词

Weaning; Mechanical ventilation; Reintubation; Rest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) can be exhausting, but the preventive role of rest has never been studied. This study aimed to evaluate whether reconnection to mechanical ventilation (MV) for 1 h after the effort of a successful SBT could reduce the need for reintubation in critically ill patients. Methods: Randomized multicenter trial conducted in 17 Spanish medical-surgical intensive care units (Oct 2013-Jan 2015). Patients under MV for longer than 12 h who fulfilled criteria for planned extubation were randomly allocated after a successful SBT to direct extubation (control group) or reconnection to the ventilator for a 1-h rest before extubation (rest group). The primary outcome was reintubation within 48 h. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: We recruited 243 patients randomized to the control group and 227 to the rest group. Median time from intubation to SBT did not differ between groups [5.5 (2.7, 9.6) days in the control group vs. 5.7 (2.7, 10.6) in the rest group; p = 0.85]. Reintubation within 48 h after extubation was more common in the control than in the rest group [35 (14%) vs. 12 (5%) patients; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.65; p < 0.001]. A multivariable regression model demonstrated that the variables independently associated with reintubation were rest [OR 0.34 (95% CI 0.17-0.68)], APACHE II [OR 1.04 (1.002-1.077)], and days of MV before SBT [OR 1.04 (1.001-1.073)], whereas age, reason for admission, and type and duration of SBT were not. Conclusion: One-hour rest after a successful SBT reduced the rates of reintubation within 48 h after extubation in critically ill patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据