Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668282›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2025

Switching from controlled to assisted mechanical ventilation: a multi-center retrospective study (SWITCH).

Jim M Smit, Jasper Van Bommel, Diederik A M P J Gommers, Marcel J T Reinders, Michel E Van Genderen, Jesse H Krijthe, Annemijn H Jonkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Jim M SmitErasmus Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care (internal postal address: Room Ne-411), Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. jim.m.smit@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3716-1863
Jasper Van BommelErasmus Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care (internal postal address: Room Ne-411), Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Diederik A M P J GommersErasmus Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care (internal postal address: Room Ne-411), Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marcel J T ReindersEEMCS, Pattern Recognition & Bioinformatics Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Michel E Van GenderenErasmus Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care (internal postal address: Room Ne-411), Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jesse H KrijtheEEMCS, Pattern Recognition & Bioinformatics Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Annemijn H JonkmanErasmus Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care (internal postal address: Room Ne-411), Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. a.jonkman@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

ZonMw 09150162210061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSwitching from controlled to assisted ventilation is crucial in the trajectory of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, but no guidelines exist. We described current practices, analyzed patient characteristics associated with switch success or failure, and explored the feasibility to predict switch failure.

methodsIn this retrospective study, we obtained highly granular longitudinal ICU data sets from three medical centers, covering demographics, severity scores, vital signs, ventilation, and laboratory parameters. The primary endpoint was switch success, considering a switch attempt to be successful if a patient did not return to controlled ventilation for the next 72 h while alive, and to be failed otherwise. We compared the characteristics of patients with successful vs. failed first switch attempts at ICU admission, immediately before, and 3 h after the attempt. We trained LASSO logistic regression models to predict switch failure.

resultsIn 4524/6715 (67%) patients attempting a switch, the first attempt failed. The first switch attempt, regardless of success or failure, was generally made at normalized PaCO

conclusionsApproximately two-thirds of attempts to switch patients to assisted ventilation fail, which are associated with significantly worse clinical outcomes, despite similar baseline disease severity. Contrary to our hypotheses, patients with successful and failed attempts showed similar characteristics, making switch failure difficult to predict. These findings underscore the importance of preventing switch failures and, given the retrospective nature of this study, highlight the need for prospective studies to better understand the reasons for switch failure and when spontaneous breathing can be safely initiated.

Indexed as

Assisted ventilationHypoxemic respiratory failureMechanical ventilationPrediction modelSpontaneous breathing

Identifiers

PMID40668282
PMCPMC12267752

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.