Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children (Review)

Abstract
Background: Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of the mechanical support to a patient's ventilatory needs and
facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of
ventilation.

Objectives: To compare the duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation for critically ill ventilated adults and children when managed
with automated closed loop systems versus non-automated strategies. Secondary objectives were to determine differences
in duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to August 2011); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to August 2011); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to August 2011); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). In addition we received and reviewed auto-alerts for our search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to August 2012. Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning
strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU).

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data into forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria.

Main results: Pooled data from 15 eligible trials (14 adult, one paediatric) totalling 1173 participants (1143 adults, 30 children) indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 32% (95% CI 19% to 46%, P =0.002), however heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 89%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or
medical ICU populations (43%, 95% CI 8% to 65%, P = 0.02) and Smartcare/PS™ (31%, 95% CI 7% to 49%, P = 0.02) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (17%, 95% CI 8% to 26%) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (11%, 95% CI 0% to 21%). There was no difference in mortality rates or hospital LOS. Overall the quality of evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk.

Authors' conclusions: Automated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation, and ICU stay. Reductions are more
likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized
controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults & children (Review)

Background Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. This review was originally published in 2013 with an update published in 2014. Objectives The primary objective for this review was to compare the total duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, defined as the time from study randomization to successful extubation (as defined by study authors), for critically ill ventilated patients managed with an automated weaning system versus no automated weaning system (usual care). Secondary objectives for this review were to determine differences in the duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events related to early or delayed extubation with the use of automated weaning systems compared to weaning in the absence of an automated weaning system. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to September 2013); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to September 2013); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to September 2013); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles. The original search was run in August 2011, with database auto-alerts up to August 2012. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an ICU. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data in forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria. Main results We included 21 trials (19 adult, two paediatric) totaling 1676 participants (1628 adults, 48 children) in this updated review. Pooled data from 16 eligible trials reporting weaning duration indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), however heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 87%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (42%, 95% CI 10% to 63%) and Smartcare/PS™ (28%, 95% CI 7% to 49%) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of an effect on mortality rates, hospital LOS, reintubation rates, self-extubation and use of non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Prolonged mechanical ventilation > 21 days and tracheostomy were reduced in favour of automated systems (relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95 and RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90 respectively). Overall the quality of the evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk. Authors' conclusions Automated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation and ICU stay. Reductions are more likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.

Factors that impact on the use of mechanical ventilation weaning protocols in critically ill adults and children: a qualitative-evidence synthesis

Background:
Prolonged mechanical ventilation is associated with a longer intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and higher mortality. Consequently, methods to improve ventilator weaning processes have been sought. Two recent Cochrane systematic reviews in ICU adult and paediatric populations concluded that protocols can be effective in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation, but there was significant heterogeneity in study findings. Growing awareness of the benefits of understanding the contextual factors impacting on effectiveness has encouraged the integration of qualitative evidence syntheses with effectiveness reviews, which has delivered important insights into the reasons underpinning (differential) effectiveness of healthcare interventions.

Objectives:
1. To locate, appraise and synthesize qualitative evidence concerning the barriers and facilitators of the use of protocols for weaning critically-ill adults and children from mechanical ventilation;

2. To integrate this synthesis with two Cochrane effectiveness reviews of protocolized weaning to help explain observed heterogeneity by identifying contextual factors that impact on the use of protocols for weaning critically-ill adults and children from mechanical ventilation;

3. To use the integrated body of evidence to suggest the circumstances in which weaning protocols are most likely to be used.

Search methods:
We used a range of search terms identified with the help of the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) mnemonic. Where available, we used appropriate methodological filters for specific databases. We searched the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, EBSCOHost, Web of Science Core Collection, ASSIA, IBSS, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest and LILACS on the 26th February 2015. In addition, we searched: the grey literature; the websites of professional associations for relevant publications; and the reference lists of all publications reviewed. We also contacted authors of the trials included in the effectiveness reviews as well as of studies (potentially) included in the qualitative synthesis, conducted citation searches of the publications reporting these studies, and contacted content experts.

We reran the search on 3rd July 2016 and found three studies, which are awaiting classification.

Selection criteria:
We included qualitative studies that described: the circumstances in which protocols are designed, implemented or used, or both, and the views and experiences of healthcare professionals either involved in the design, implementation or use of weaning protocols or involved in the weaning of critically-ill adults and children from mechanical ventilation not using protocols. We included studies that: reflected on any aspect of the use of protocols, explored contextual factors relevant to the development, implementation or use of weaning protocols, and reported contextual phenomena and outcomes identified as relevant to the effectiveness of protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Data collection and analysis:
At each stage, two review authors undertook designated tasks, with the results shared amongst the wider team for discussion and final development. We independently reviewed all retrieved titles, abstracts and full papers for inclusion, and independently extracted selected data from included studies. We used the findings of the included studies to develop a new set of analytic themes focused on the barriers and facilitators to the use of protocols, and further refined them to produce a set of summary statements. We used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) framework to arrive at a final assessment of the overall confidence of the evidence used in the synthesis. We included all studies but undertook two sensitivity analyses to determine how the removal of certain bodies of evidence impacted on the content and confidence of the synthesis. We deployed a logic model to integrate the findings of the qualitative evidence synthesis with those of the Cochrane effectiveness reviews.

Main results:
We included 11 studies in our synthesis, involving 267 participants (one study did not report the number of participants). Five more studies are awaiting classification and will be dealt with when we update the review.

The quality of the evidence was mixed; of the 35 summary statements, we assessed 17 as ‘low’, 13 as ‘moderate’ and five as ‘high’ confidence. Our synthesis produced nine analytical themes, which report potential barriers and facilitators to the use of protocols. The themes are: the need for continual staff training and development; clinical experience as this promotes felt and perceived competence and confidence to wean; the vulnerability of weaning to disparate interprofessional working; an understanding of protocols as militating against a necessary proactivity in clinical practice; perceived nursing scope of practice and professional risk; ICU structure and processes of care; the ability of protocols to act as a prompt for shared care and consistency in weaning practice; maximizing the use of protocols through visibility and ease of implementation; and the ability of protocols to act as a framework for communication with parents.

Authors' conclusions:
There is a clear need for weaning protocols to take account of the social and cultural environment in which they are to be implemented. Irrespective of its inherent strengths, a protocol will not be used if it does not accommodate these complexities. In terms of protocol development, comprehensive interprofessional input will help to ensure broad-based understanding and a sense of ‘ownership’. In terms of implementation, all relevant ICU staff will benefit from general weaning as well as protocol-specific training; not only will this help secure a relevant clinical knowledge base and operational understanding, but will also demonstrate to others that this knowledge and understanding is in place. In order to maximize relevance and acceptability, protocols should be designed with the patient profile and requirements of the target ICU in mind. Predictably, an under-resourced ICU will impact adversely on protocol implementation, as staff will prioritize management of acutely deteriorating and critically-ill patients.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.