4.3 Review

Weaning from ventilatory support

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN CRITICAL CARE
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 36-43

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283220e07

关键词

extubation; mechanical ventilation; reintubation; respiratory failure; weaning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review In intubated patients, mechanical ventilation offers essential ventilatory support, while the respiratory system recovers from acute respiratory failure. Yet, invasive mechanical ventilation is associated with risks and complications that prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation and increase the risk for death. Therefore, safely weaning the patient from the ventilator as soon as possible is paramount. Recent randomized trials have addressed a number of key areas of interest. Recent findings Determining readiness for spontaneous breathing, the first step in weaning, is best achieved using liberal oxygenation criteria; does not require routine use of weaning predictors; and can be conducted, in certain patient populations, using protocols driven by respiratory therapists or ICU nurses. Spontaneous breathing trials can be conducted on low levels of pressure support, continuous positive airway pressure, or T-piece. Weaning failure often results from an imbalance between respiratory load and capacity. There is increasing appreciation that cardiac dysfunction can limit weaning. Recent randomized trials suggest that noninvasive ventilation (in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and computer-driven approaches show promise as weaning strategies. New techniques have been employed to identify patients at increased risk for extubation failure. Noninvasive ventilation, when used in high-risk patients, can decrease extubation failure. Summary Weaning from mechanical ventilation continues to be an area of considerable importance. Recent randomized controlled trials provide high-level evidence for the best approaches to weaning and extubation.

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

4.3
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