ArticleAnnals of intensive care2024
Spontaneous breathing trial with pressure support on positive end-expiratory pressure and extensive use of non-invasive ventilation versus T-piece in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03861117 (Impact of the Combination of Pressure Support and Positive End Expiratory Pressure During Spontaneous Breathing Trial Versus T-piece on the Time to Successful Extubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Impact of the Combination of Pressure Support and Positive End Expiratory Pressure During Spontaneous Breathing Trial Versus T-piece on the Time to Successful Extubation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurse-performed diaphragm ultrasound integrated with spontaneous breathing trial criteria for risk stratification of extubation outcomes in neurosurgical critically ill patients: a multicenter prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- How should spontaneous breathing trials be performed in the light of recent literature?Annals of intensive care · 2025Article
- Impact of pressure support ventilation duration after a spontaneous breathing trial on reintubation rates in critically ill subjects: a retrospective study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Critical insights for intensivists on Guillain-Barré syndrome.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to assess whether a strategy combining spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with both pressure support (PS) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and extended use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (extensively-assisted weaning) would shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with SBT with T-piece (TP) and post-extubation NIV performed in selected patients as advocated by guidelines (standard weaning), in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation.
methodsThe study is a single-center prospective open label, randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups and balanced randomization with a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were intubated patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h who failed their first SBT using TP. In the extensively-assisted weaning group, SBT was performed with PS (7 cmH
resultsFrom May 2019 to March 2023, 98 patients were included and randomized in the study (49 in each group). Four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (2 in both groups); therefore, 47 patients were analyzed in each group. The extensively-assisted weaning group had a higher median age (68 [58-73] vs. 62 [55-71] yrs.) and similar sex ratio (62% male vs. 57%). Time until successful extubation was not significantly different between extensively-assisted and standard weaning groups (median, 172 [50-436] vs. 95 [47-232] hours, Cox hazard ratio for successful extubation, 0.88 [95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.42] using the standard weaning group as a reference; p = 0.60). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups.
conclusionAn extensively-assisted weaning strategy did not lead to a shorter time to successful extubation than a standard weaning strategy. Trial registration The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03861117), on March 1, 2019, before the inclusion of the first patient. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03861117 .
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.