• Crit Care · Feb 2020

    Meta Analysis

    Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    In ventilated critical care patients, both T-piece and pressure support ventilation are comparable as spontaneous breathing trial techniques in their ability to predict successful extubation.

    pearl
    • Yuting Li, Hongxiang Li, and Dong Zhang.
    • Department of Intensive Care Unit, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, 130021, China.
    • Crit Care. 2020 Feb 26; 24 (1): 67.

    BackgroundThe effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to clarify the preferable SBT (T-piece or pressure support ventilation [PSV]).MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to the 31st of July 2019. We included RCTs involving adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent at least two different SBT methods. All authors reported our primary outcome of successful extubation rate and clearly compared PS versus T-piece with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsTen RCTs including 3165 patients were included. The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the successful extubation rate between the T-piece group and PS group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; P = 0.27; I2 = 79%). In addition, compared with the PS group, the T-piece group showed no significant difference in the rate of reintubation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.26; P = 0.95; I2 = 5%), ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.83-1.80; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%), hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.99-1.87; P = 0.06; I2 = 19%), ICU length of stay (mean difference = - 0.10; 95% CI, - 0.59 to 0.39; P = 0.69; I2 = 13%), and hospital length of stay (mean difference = - 0.82;95% CI, - 2.2 to 0.55; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsT-piece and PSV as SBTs are considered to have comparable predictive power of successful extubation in critically ill patients. The analysis of secondary outcomes also shows no significant difference in the rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality between the two groups. Further randomized controlled studies of SBTs are still required.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

    pearl
    1

    In ventilated critical care patients, both T-piece and pressure support ventilation are comparable as spontaneous breathing trial techniques in their ability to predict successful extubation.

    Daniel Jolley  Daniel Jolley
     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.