ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
Protocolized ventilator weaning verses usual care: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProtocolized ventilator weaning (PW) strategies utilizing spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) result in shorter intubation duration and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS). We compared respiratory therapy (RT)-driven PW versus usual care (UC) as it pertains to physiologic respiratory parameters, intubation duration, extubation success/reintubation rates, and ICU LOS.
methodsprospective, multicentric, randomized controlled trial was performed in closed medical and surgical ICUs with 24/7 in-house intensivist coverage at six academic medical centers in a resource-limited setting from October 18, 2007, to May 03, 2014. Extubation readiness was determined by the attending physician (UC) or the respiratory therapist (PW) using predefined criteria and SBT. Physiologic variables, serial blood gas measurements, and weaning indices were assessed including the Rapid Shallow Breathing Index (RSBI), negative inspiratory force (NIF), occlusion pressure (P0.1), and dynamic and static compliance (C
resultstotal of 5502 patients were randomized (PW 2787; UC 2715), of which 167 patients died without ventilator weaning (PW 90; UC 77) and 645 patients were excluded (PW 365; UC 280). Finally, a total of 4200 patients were analyzed (PW 2075; UC 2125). The PW group displayed improvements in minute ventilation (
conclusionPW with RT-driven extubation decisions is safe, effective, and associated with decreased re-intubation (early and late), shorter hospital stays, increased intubation duration (statistically but not clinically significant), and unchanged in-patient mortality.
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.