Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37492415›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2023

Pressure support versus continuous positive airway pressure for predicting successful liberation from invasive ventilation in children: an open label, randomized non-inferiority trial.

C Revaiah Vishwa, Karthi Nallasamy, Suresh Kumar Angurana, Arun Bansal, Muralidharan Jayashree

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C Revaiah VishwaPediatric Critical Care Unit, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Karthi NallasamyPediatric Critical Care Unit, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Suresh Kumar AnguranaPediatric Critical Care Unit, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Arun BansalPediatric Critical Care Unit, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Muralidharan JayashreePediatric Critical Care Unit, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pressure support (PS) as a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was considered inferior to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and T-piece because PS underestimated post-extubation work of breathing in physiologic studies. We aimed to compare PS and CPAP as SBT methods for assessing clinical outcomes in children. Methods: This was an open label randomized non-inferiority trial conducted between December 2019 and August 2021 among children aged 1 month to 12 years deemed ready for weaning after at least 48 h of invasive ventilation in PICU. Children were randomized to undergo a 2-h SBT with PS of 8 cm H Findings: Of the 247 enrolled children, 244 completed the trial (121 in PS and 123 in CPAP group). Median (IQR) age was 24 (9, 84) months. Median (IQR) duration of invasive ventilation before randomization was 4.5 (3, 6.5) days. Successful liberation from invasive ventilation after first SBT occurred in 97 (80.2%) children in PS and 93 (75.6%) children in CPAP group [difference 4.6; 95% CI (-5.8, 15); p = 0.39]. First SBT pass rate between PS and CPAP [111 (91.7%) versus 105 (85.4%); difference 6.3; 95% CI (-1.6, 14.3); p = 0.12] was similar. Need for post-extubation respiratory support [52 (43%) versus 49 (40%)], rate of reintubation within 72 h [14 (11.6%) versus 12 (9.8%)] and median (IQR) length of PICU stay [9 (6, 15) versus 8 (5.5, 13) days] were comparable. Four (1.6%) children, all in CPAP group had unfavourable outcome (1 died, 3 discontinued care). Interpretation: In invasively ventilated children, 2-h SBT with pressure support was non-inferior to CPAP in predicting successful liberation from invasive ventilation. Funding: None.

Indexed as

CPAPExtubation readiness testMechanical ventilationPICUPressure supportSpontaneous breathing trial

Identifiers

PMID37492415
PMCPMC10363498
OpenAlexW4378648016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.