Trial reportMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2018
An Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Low Level Pressure Support and T-piece as Strategies for Discontinuation of Mechanical Ventilation in a General Surgical Intensive Care Unit.
Trial report in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques for Extubating Adults and Children Who Are Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients: Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2024Guideline
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Four Different Spontaneous Breathing Trials for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Pooled it
- Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure or Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Weaning management in a patient with heart dysfunction: a case report.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients: Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2024Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes in critical patients undergoing different mechanical ventilation modes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Methods of liberation from mechanical ventilation: Which one is best?Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Role of a successful spontaneous breathing trial in ventilator liberation in brain-injured patients.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Methods of Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation in Adult: A Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical study of Dysfunctional Ventilatory Weaning Response in critically ill patients.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2020Article
- Reduction of ventilatory time using the multidisciplinary disconnection protocol. Pilot study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of continuous low pressure support (PSV) and T-piece as strategies for discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and extubation in a surgical ICU. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a prospective open label randomized control study in surgical ICU patients who were intubated, mechanically ventilated, and who met criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial. Eligible, enrolled patients were randomized to receive low-level pressure supportup to 7 cmH2O (PSV) or T-piece as the mode of their spontaneous breathing trial.
resultsA total of 520 patients were randomized (260 in PSV group and 260 in T-piece group). There were no differences between the groups in baseline characteristics except duration of MV before trial was longer in PSV group. There were also no differences in hemodynamic and respiratory measures between groups. The PSV had a significant higher number of SBT attempt before success and extubation. After extubation, the re-intubation within 48 hours had a lower trend in PSV group (PSV vs. T-piece: 10% vs. 14.6%; p=0.11). The pneumonia occurrence, hospital mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay were not significant different between groups. In multivariable analysis, PSV was associated with a lower risk of success at the first SBT (adjusted relative risk, RR 0.79 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.70 - 0.88]; p<0.001], and a lower risk of re-intubation within 48 hours after extubation (adjusted RR 0.62 [95%CI 0.40 - 0.98]; p=0.04). There were no differences between groups in pneumonia after extubation and in hospital mortality rate.
conclusionAlthough PSV needs a higher number of SBT trial before success and extubation, the re-intubation within 48 hours is lower than T piece. However, there were no differences between the groups in term of pneumonia after extubation, hospital mortality as well as ICU and hospital length of stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.