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.

Interventions for prevention of giant retinal tear in the fellow eye

Background: A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees ormore in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. It causes significant visual morbidity from retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The fellow eye of patients who have had a spontaneous giant retinal tear has an increased risk of developing a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. Interventions such as 360-degree encircling scleral buckling, 360-degree cryotherapy and 360-degree laser photocoagulation have been advocated by some ophthalmologists as prophylaxis for the fellow eye against the development of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment, or to prevent its extension. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic 360-degree interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tear to prevent the occurrence of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2008), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2008) and Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2008). In addition, we searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to 2008 for information about other relevant studies. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 15 December 2008. Selection criteria: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one prophylactic treatment for fellow eyes of patients with giant retinal tear against observation (no treatment) or another form of prophylactic treatment. In the absence of RCTs, we planned to discuss case-control studies that met the inclusion criteria but we would not conduct a meta-analysis using these studies. Data collection and analysis: We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review and therefore no assessment of methodological quality or meta-analysis could be performed. Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Authors' conclusions: No strong evidence in the literature was found to support or refute prophylactic 360-degree treatments to prevent a giant retinal tear or a retinal detachment in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tears. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interventions for prevention of giant retinal tear in the fellow eye.

BACKGROUND: A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees or more in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. It causes significant visual morbidity from retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The fellow eye of patients who have had a spontaneous giant retinal tear has an increased risk of developing a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. Interventions such as 360-degree encircling scleral buckling, 360-degree cryotherapy and 360-degree laser photocoagulation have been advocated by some ophthalmologists as prophylaxis for the fellow eye against the development of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment, or to prevent its extension. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic 360-degree interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tear to prevent the occurrence of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2008), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2008) and Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2008). In addition, we searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to 2008 for information about other relevant studies. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 15 December 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one prophylactic treatment for fellow eyes of patients with giant retinal tear against observation (no treatment) or another form of prophylactic treatment. In the absence of RCTs, we planned to discuss case-control studies that met the inclusion criteria but we would not conduct a meta-analysis using these studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review and therefore no assessment of methodological quality or meta-analysis could be performed. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No strong evidence in the literature was found to support or refute prophylactic 360-degree treatments to prevent a giant retinal tear or a retinal detachment in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tears.

Interventions for prevention of giant retinal tear in the fellow eye.

A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees or more in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. It causes significant visual morbidity from retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The fellow eye of patients who have had a spontaneous giant retinal tear has an increased risk of developing a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. Interventions such as 360-degree encircling scleral buckling, 360-degree cryotherapy and 360-degree laser photocoagulation have been advocated by some ophthalmologists as prophylaxis for the fellow eye against the development of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment, or to prevent its extension. To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic 360-degree interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tear to prevent the occurrence of a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 December 2011. In addition, we searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to 2008 for information about other relevant studies. Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one prophylactic treatment for fellow eyes of patients with giant retinal tear against observation (no treatment) or another form of prophylactic treatment. In the absence of RCTs, we planned to discuss case-control studies that met the inclusion criteria but we would not conduct a meta-analysis using these studies. We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review and therefore no assessment of methodological quality or meta-analysis could be performed. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. No strong evidence in the literature was found to support or refute prophylactic 360-degree treatments to prevent a giant retinal tear or a retinal detachment in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tears.

Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Open angle glaucoma (OAG) is a common cause of blindness.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of medication compared with initial surgery in adults with OAG.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2012), Biosciences Information Service (BIOSIS) (January 1969 to August 2012), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to August 2012), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), Zetoc, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 August 2012. The National Research Register (NRR) was last searched in 2007 after which the database was archived. We also checked the reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing medications with surgery in adults with OAG.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS: Four trials involving 888 participants with previously untreated OAG were included. Surgery was Scheie's procedure in one trial and trabeculectomy in three trials. In three trials, primary medication was usually pilocarpine, in one trial it was a beta-blocker.The most recent trial included participants with on average mild OAG. At five years, the risk of progressive visual field loss, based on a three unit change of a composite visual field score, was not significantly different according to initial medication or initial trabeculectomy (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.01). In an analysis based on mean difference (MD) as a single index of visual field loss, the between treatment group difference in MD was -0.20 decibel (dB) (95% CI -1.31 to 0.91). For a subgroup with more severe glaucoma (MD -10 dB), findings from an exploratory analysis suggest that initial trabeculectomy was associated with marginally less visual field loss at five years than initial medication, (mean difference 0.74 dB (95% CI -0.00 to 1.48). Initial trabeculectomy was associated with lower average intraocular pressure (IOP) (mean difference 2.20 mmHg (95% CI 1.63 to 2.77) but more eye symptoms than medication (P = 0.0053). Beyond five years, visual acuity did not differ according to initial treatment (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.81).From three trials in more severe OAG, there is some evidence that medication was associated with more progressive visual field loss and 3 to 8 mmHg less IOP lowering than surgery. In the longer-term (two trials) the risk of failure of the randomised treatment was greater with medication than trabeculectomy (OR 3.90, 95% CI 1.60 to 9.53; hazard ratio (HR) 7.27, 95% CI 2.23 to 25.71). Medications and surgery have evolved since these trials were undertaken.In three trials the risk of developing cataract was higher with trabeculectomy (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.42). Evidence from one trial suggests that, beyond five years, the risk of needing cataract surgery did not differ according to initial treatment policy (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.62).Methodological weaknesses were identified in all the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Primary surgery lowers IOP more than primary medication but is associated with more eye discomfort. One trial suggests that visual field restriction at five years is not significantly different whether initial treatment is medication or trabeculectomy. There is some evidence from two small trials in more severe OAG, that initial medication (pilocarpine, now rarely used as first line medication) is associated with more glaucoma progression than surgery. Beyond five years, there is no evidence of a difference in the need for cataract surgery according to initial treatment.The clinical and cost-effectiveness of contemporary medication (prostaglandin analogues, alpha2-agonists and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors) compared with primary surgery is not known.Further RCTs of current medical treatments compared with surgery are required, particularly for people with severe glaucoma and in black ethnic groups. Outcomes should include those reported by patients. Economic evaluations are required to inform treatment policy.

Laser peripheral iridoplasty for angle-closure

BACKGROUND: Angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. Treatment is aimed at opening the anterior chamber angle and lowering the IOP with medical and/or surgical treatment (e.g. trabeculectomy, lens extraction). Laser iridotomy works by eliminating pupillary block and widens the anterior chamber angle in the majority of patients. When laser iridotomy fails to open the anterior chamber angle, laser iridoplasty may be recommended as one of the options in current standard treatment for angle-closure. Laser peripheral iridoplasty works by shrinking and pulling the peripheral iris tissue away from the trabecular meshwork. Laser peripheral iridoplasty can be used for crisis of acute angle-closure and also in non-acute situations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of narrow angles (i.e. primary angle-closure suspect), primary angle-closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in non-acute situations when compared with any other intervention. In this review, angle-closure will refer to patients with narrow angles (PACs), PAC and PACG.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 5 January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this review. Patients with narrow angles, PAC or PACG were eligible. We excluded studies that included only patients with acute presentations, using laser peripheral iridoplasty to break acute crisis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No analysis was carried out as only one trial was included in the review.

MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT with 158 participants. The trial reported laser peripheral iridoplasty as an adjunct to laser peripheral iridotomy compared to iridotomy alone. The authors report no superiority in using iridoplasty as an adjunct to iridotomy for IOP, number of medications or need for surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no strong evidence for laser peripheral iridoplasty's use in treating angle-closure.

Laser peripheral iridoplasty for angle-closure

BACKGROUND: Angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. Treatment is aimed at opening the anterior chamber angle and lowering the IOP with medical and/or surgical treatment (e.g. trabeculectomy, lens extraction). Laser iridotomy works by eliminating pupillary block and widens the anterior chamber angle in the majority of patients. When laser iridotomy fails to open the anterior chamber angle, laser iridoplasty may be recommended as one of the options in current standard treatment for angle-closure. Laser peripheral iridoplasty works by shrinking and pulling the peripheral iris tissue away from the trabecular meshwork. Laser peripheral iridoplasty can be used for crisis of acute angle-closure and also in non-acute situations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of narrow angles (i.e. primary angle-closure suspect), primary angle-closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in non-acute situations when compared with any other intervention. In this review, angle-closure will refer to patients with narrow angles, PAC and PACG. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences). The databases were last searched on 11 February 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in this review. Patients with narrow angles, PAC or PACG were eligible. Studies that included only patients with acute presentations, using laser peripheral iridoplasty to break acute crisis were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No analysis was carried out due to lack of trials. MAIN RESULTS: There were no RCTs assessing laser peripheral iridoplasty in the non-acute setting of angle-closure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no strong evidence for laser peripheral iridoplasty's use in treating angle-closure.

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.