Association between spontaneous breathing trial methods and reintubation in adult critically ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Spontaneous breathing trial extubation high flow oxygen intensive care unit network meta-analysis reintubation weaning

Journal

Chest
ISSN: 1931-3543
Titre abrégé: Chest
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0231335

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 05 03 2024
revised: 04 06 2024
accepted: 12 06 2024
medline: 5 7 2024
pubmed: 5 7 2024
entrez: 4 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Reintubation is associated with higher risk of mortality. There is no clear evidence on the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) method to reduce the risk of reintubation. Are different methods of conducting SBT in critically ill patients associated with different risk of reintubation compared to T-tube? We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of different SBT methods on reintubation. We surveyed PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases from inception to 26th January 2024. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to determine the likelihood that an intervention was ranked as the best. Pairwise comparisons were also investigated by frequentist meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE approach. A total of 22 RCTs were included, for a total of 6196 patients. The network included nine nodes, with 13 direct pairwise comparisons. About 71% of the patients were allocated to T-tube and PSV-ZEEP, with 2135 and 2101 patients, respectively. The only intervention with a significantly lower risk of reintubation compared to T-tube was high flow oxygen (HFO) (RR 0.23, CrI 0.09 to 0.51, moderate quality evidence). HFO was associated with the highest probability of being the best intervention for reducing the risk of reintubation (81.86%, SUCRA 96.42), followed by continuous positive airway pressure (11.8%, SUCRA 76.75). HFO SBT was associated with a lower risk of reintubation in comparison to other SBT methods. The results of our analysis should be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that investigated HFO SBT, and potential clinical heterogeneity related to co-interventions. Further trials should be performed to confirm the results on larger cohorts of patients and assess specific subgroups.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Reintubation is associated with higher risk of mortality. There is no clear evidence on the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) method to reduce the risk of reintubation.
RESEARCH QUESTION OBJECTIVE
Are different methods of conducting SBT in critically ill patients associated with different risk of reintubation compared to T-tube?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of different SBT methods on reintubation. We surveyed PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases from inception to 26th January 2024. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to determine the likelihood that an intervention was ranked as the best. Pairwise comparisons were also investigated by frequentist meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 22 RCTs were included, for a total of 6196 patients. The network included nine nodes, with 13 direct pairwise comparisons. About 71% of the patients were allocated to T-tube and PSV-ZEEP, with 2135 and 2101 patients, respectively. The only intervention with a significantly lower risk of reintubation compared to T-tube was high flow oxygen (HFO) (RR 0.23, CrI 0.09 to 0.51, moderate quality evidence). HFO was associated with the highest probability of being the best intervention for reducing the risk of reintubation (81.86%, SUCRA 96.42), followed by continuous positive airway pressure (11.8%, SUCRA 76.75).
INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS
HFO SBT was associated with a lower risk of reintubation in comparison to other SBT methods. The results of our analysis should be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that investigated HFO SBT, and potential clinical heterogeneity related to co-interventions. Further trials should be performed to confirm the results on larger cohorts of patients and assess specific subgroups.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38964674
pii: S0012-3692(24)04575-6
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3773
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Mariachiara Ippolito (M)

SIAARTI Systematic Review Group; Department of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Intensive Care and Emergency. University Hospital Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, Palermo, Italy.

Salvatore Sardo (S)

SIAARTI Systematic Review Group; Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy.

Vincenzo Francesco Tripodi (VF)

SIAARTI Systematic Review Group; Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery, University Hospital "Gaetano Martino" of Messina, Messina, Italy.

Nicola Latronico (N)

Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency, ASST Spedali Civili University Hospital, Brescia, Italy.

Elena Bignami (E)

Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Viale Gramsci 14, Parma, 43126, Italy.

Antonino Giarratano (A)

Department of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Intensive Care and Emergency. University Hospital Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, Palermo, Italy; Department of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.). University of Palermo, Italy.

Andrea Cortegiani (A)

SIAARTI Systematic Review Group; Department of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Intensive Care and Emergency. University Hospital Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, Palermo, Italy; Department of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.). University of Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: andrea.cortegiani@unipa.it.

Classifications MeSH