Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42104281›Full record

Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2026

Randomized clinical trial of ventilator liberation with pressure support ventilation versus therapist-implement patient-specific weaning in prolonged weaning patients via tracheostomy.

Tamás Dolinay, Dale Jun, Swetha Gogineni, Lillian Hsu, Abigail Maller, B Corbett Walsh, Jeffrey Gornbein

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06976554 (Mechanical Ventilator Weaning in Chronically Ventilated Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT06976554 nacompletednot on this map

Mechanical Ventilator Weaning in Chronically Ventilated Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2023 to 2025Enrolled51ConditionsMechanical Ventilation ComplicationArmsweaning
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tamás DolinayDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. tdolinay@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9928-9873
Dale JunDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Swetha GogineniDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Lillian HsuDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Abigail MallerDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
B Corbett WalshDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Jeffrey GornbeinDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.

Funding

UCLA CTSI Grant UL1TR001881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiberation from prolonged mechanical ventilation is challenging and its outcomes are poor. Patients who failed at least three spontaneous breathing trials, often referred to as prolonged weaning patients, are usually weaned with protocolized programs in specialized weaning units, but there are no standardized strategies to facilitate their ventilator liberation. The objective of this study was to compare the ventilator liberation rate of two common ventilator weaning programs.

methodsTracheostomized patients with ongoing invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 21 day who were admitted to Barlow Respiratory Hospital for ventilator weaning were studied. Patients who passed spontaneous breathing trial on admission were excluded. In a prospective parallel group, non-blinded clinical study, patients were randomized to receive either the Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) weaning program or the Therapist-Implemented Patient-Specific (TIPS) weaning program. Randomization was performed using a computer algorithm of block design. The primary outcome was ventilator liberation success. The secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, physical recovery, discharge disposition and mortality. Significant hospital events were also compared between the groups.

resultsN = 25 patients were studied in PSV and N = 26 in the TIPS group. Outcomes were reported for all patients. The liberation success rate at 30 days was 37.5% (standard error, SE = 9.9%) in the PSV and 46.2% (SE = 9.8%) in the TIPS group (p = 0.58, odds ratio, OR 1.42, RD 8.7%, 95% confidence interval, CI=-18.6-35.9). The liberation rate at discharge was 44% (SE = 9.9%) in the PSV group and 53.8% (SE = 9.8%) in the TIPS group (p = 0.54, OR:1.48, RD 9.8%, CI=-17.2-37.2%). The inpatient mortality was: PSV = 24% (SE 8.5%) and TIPS = 11.5% (SE 6.3%), p = 0.291, OR 0.413, RD=-12.5%, CI=-33.2-8.3%. We did not find a significant difference between the two ventilator weaning programs in any of our outcomes, but our study describes a very sick patient population. Continued weaning beyond 30 days had improved liberation success.

conclusionsBoth weaning paths are equally beneficial for prolonged mechanical ventilation patients who undergo prolonged weaning.

trial registrationThe trial was registered retroactively at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06976554.

Indexed as

Positive-Pressure RespirationTracheostomyVentilator WeaningAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRespiration, ArtificialTreatment OutcomeLong-term acute care hospitalProlonged mechanical ventilationProlonged weaningTracheostomyVentilator liberation

Identifiers

PMID42104281
PMCPMC13321491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.