We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Effect of Protocolized Weaning With Early Extubation to Noninvasive Ventilation vs Invasive Weaning on Time to Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation Among Patients With Respiratory Failure: The Breathe Randomized Clinical Trial.
- Authors
Perkins, Gavin D.; Mistry, Dipesh; Gates, Simon; Gao, Fang; Snelson, Catherine; Hart, Nicholas; Camporota, Luigi; Varley, James; Carle, Coralie; Paramasivam, Elankumaran; Hoddell, Beverley; McAuley, Daniel F.; Walsh, Timothy S.; Blackwood, Bronagh; Rose, Louise; Lamb, Sarah E.; Petrou, Stavros; Young, Duncan; Lall, Ranjit; Breathe Collaborators
- Abstract
<bold>Importance: </bold>In adults in whom weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation is difficult, noninvasive ventilation may facilitate early liberation, but there is uncertainty about its effectiveness in a general intensive care patient population.<bold>Objective: </bold>To investigate among patients with difficulty weaning the effects of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation on time to liberation from ventilation compared with protocolized invasive weaning.<bold>Design, Setting, and Participants: </bold>Randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter clinical trial enrolling patients between March 2013 and October 2016 from 41 intensive care units in the UK National Health Service. Follow-up continued until April 2017. Adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and in whom a spontaneous breathing trial failed were enrolled.<bold>Interventions: </bold>Patients were randomized to receive either protocolized weaning via early extubation to noninvasive ventilation (n = 182) or protocolized standard weaning (continued invasive ventilation until successful spontaneous breathing trial, followed by extubation) (n = 182).<bold>Main Outcomes and Measures: </bold>Primary outcome was time from randomization to successful liberation from all forms of mechanical ventilation among survivors, measured in days, with the minimal clinically important difference defined as 1 day. Secondary outcomes were duration of invasive and total ventilation (days), reintubation or tracheostomy rates, and survival.<bold>Results: </bold>Among 364 randomized patients (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 14.8] years; 50.5% male), 319 were evaluable for the primary effectiveness outcome (41 died before liberation, 2 withdrew, and 2 were discharged with ongoing ventilation). The median time to liberation was 4.3 days in the noninvasive group vs 4.5 days in the invasive group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40). Competing risk analysis accounting for deaths had a similar result (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34). The noninvasive group received less invasive ventilation (median, 1 day vs 4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and fewer total ventilator days (median, 3 days vs 4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.62-1.0). There was no significant difference in reintubation, tracheostomy rates, or survival. Adverse events occurred in 45 patients (24.7%) in the noninvasive group compared with 47 (25.8%) in the invasive group.<bold>Conclusions and Relevance: </bold>Among patients requiring mechanical ventilation in whom a spontaneous breathing trial had failed, early extubation to noninvasive ventilation did not shorten time to liberation from any ventilation.<bold>Trial Registration: </bold>ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN15635197.
- Subjects
RESPIRATORY insufficiency treatment; AIRWAY (Anatomy); ARTIFICIAL respiration; COMPARATIVE studies; INTENSIVE care units; RESEARCH methodology; MEDICAL cooperation; RESEARCH; RESPIRATORY insufficiency; TIME; MECHANICAL ventilators; EVALUATION research; RANDOMIZED controlled trials; HOSPITAL mortality
- Publication
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2018, Vol 320, Issue 18, p1881
- ISSN
0098-7484
- Publication type
journal article
- DOI
10.1001/jama.2018.13763