Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults

BackgroundMechanical ventilation is important in caring for patients with critical illness. Clinical complications, increased mortality, and high costs of health care are associated with prolonged ventilatory support or premature discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Weaning refers to the process of gradually or abruptly withdrawing mechanical ventilation. the weaning process begins after partial or complete resolution of the underlying pathophysiology precipitating respiratory failure and ends with weaning success (successful extubation in intubated patients or permanent withdrawal of ventilatory support in tracheostomized patients).ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two strategies, a T-tube and pressure support ventilation, for weaning adult patients with respiratory failure that required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours, measuring weaning success and other clinically important outcomes.Search methodsWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to June 2012); EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012); LILACS (1986 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012); SciELO (from 1997 to August 2012); thesis repository of CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior) (http://capesdw.capes.gov.br/capesdw/) (August 2012); and Current Controlled Trials (August 2012).We reran the search in December 2013. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a T-tube with pressure support (PS) for the conduct of spontaneous breathing trials and as methods of gradual weaning of adult patients with respiratory failure of various aetiologies who received invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.Data collection and analysisTwo authors extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Meta-analyses using the random-effects model were conducted for nine outcomes. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to estimate the treatment effect, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Main resultsWe included nine RCTs with 1208 patients; 622 patients were randomized to a PS spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and 586 to a T-tube SBT. the studies were classified into three categories of weaning: simple, difficult, and prolonged. Four studies placed patients in two categories of weaning. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) and a T-tube were used directly as SBTs in four studies (844 patients, 69.9% of the sample). in 186 patients (15.4%) both interventions were used along with gradual weaning from mechanical ventilation; the PS was gradually decreased, twice a day, until it was minimal and periods with a T-tube were gradually increased to two and eight hours for patients with difficult and prolonged weaning. in two studies (14.7% of patients) the PS was lowered to 2 to 4 cm H2O and 3 to 5 cm H2O based on ventilatory parameters until the minimal PS levels were reached. PS was then compared to the trial with the T-tube (TT).We identified 33 different reported outcomes in the included studies; we took 14 of them into consideration and performed meta-analyses on nine. With regard to the sequence of allocation generation, allocation concealment, selective reporting and attrition bias, no study presented a high risk of bias. We found no clear evidence of a difference between PS and TT for weaning success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, 9 studies, low quality of evidence), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23, 5 studies, low quality of evidence), reintubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26, 7 studies, low quality evidence), ICU and long-term weaning unit (LWU) length of stay (MD -7.08 days, 95% CI -16.26 to 2.1, 2 studies, low quality of evidence) and pneumonia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence). PS was significantly superior to the TT for successful SBTs (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, 4 studies, moderate quality of evidence). Four studies reported on weaning duration, however we were unable to combined the study data because of differences in how the studies presented their data. One study was at high risk of other bias and four studies were at high risk for detection bias. Three studies reported that the weaning duration was shorter with PS, and in one study the duration was shorter in patients with a TT.Authors' conclusionsTo date, we have found evidence of generally low quality from studies comparing pressure support ventilation (PSV) and with a T-tube. the effects on weaning success, ICU mortality, reintubation, ICU and LWU length of stay, and pneumonia were imprecise. However, PSV was more effective than a T-tube for successful spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) among patients with simple weaning. Based on the findings of single trials, three studies presented a shorter weaning duration in the group undergoing PS SBT, however a fourth study found a shorter weaning duration with a T-tube.

Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children

BackgroundAnterior open bite occurs when there is a lack of vertical overlap of the upper and lower incisors. the aetiology is multifactorial including: oral habits, unfavourable growth patterns, enlarged lymphatic tissue with mouth breathing. Several treatments have been proposed to correct this malocclusion, but interventions are not supported by strong scientific evidence.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate orthodontic and orthopaedic treatments to correct anterior open bite in children.Search methodsThe following databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 14 February 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 February 2014); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 February 2014); LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 14 February 2014); BBO via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 14 February 2014); and SciELO (1997 to 14 February 2014). We searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 February 2014). Chinese journals were handsearched and the bibliographies of papers were retrieved.Selection criteriaAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of orthodontic or orthopaedic treatments or both to correct anterior open bite in children.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all reports identified.Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous data. the continuous data were expressed as described by the author.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials were included comparing: effects of Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training versus no treatment; repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks; and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup versus no treatment.The study comparing repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks could not be analysed because the authors interrupted the treatment earlier than planned due to side effects in four of ten patients.FR-4 associated with lip-seal training (RR = 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.38)) and removable palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup (RR = 0.23 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.48)) were able to correct anterior open bite.No study described: randomisation process, sample size calculation, there was not blinding in the cephalometric analysis and the two studies evaluated two interventions at the same time. These results should be therefore viewed with caution.Authors' conclusionsThere is weak evidence that the interventions FR-4 with lip-seal training and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup are able to correct anterior open bite. Given that the trials included have potential bias, these results must be viewed with caution. Recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made based only on the results of these trials. More randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the interventions for treating anterior open bite.