Parents’ and young people’s involvement in designing a trial of ventilator weaning

Consulting with users is considered best practice and is highly recommended in designing new trials. As part of our feasibility work, we undertook a consultation exercise with parents, ex-patients and young people prior to designing a trial of protocol-based ventilator weaning. Our aims were to (1) ascertain views on the relevance and importance of the trial; (2) determine the important parent/patient outcome measures; and (3) ascertain views on informed consent in a cluster randomized controlled trial. We conducted audio-recorded face-to-face, telephone and focus group interviews with parents and young people. Data were content analysed to generate information to address our specific consultation objectives. The setting was the north-western region of England. A total of 16 participants were interviewed: 2 parents of paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) survivors; 1 PICU survivor; and 13 young people from the former Medicines for Children Research Network. The trial objectives were deemed important and relevant, and participants considered the most important outcome measure to be the length of time on ventilation. Parents and young people did not consider written informed consent to be a necessary requirement in the context of this trial, rather awareness of unit participation in the trial was important with the opportunity of opting out of data collection. This consultation provided useful, pragmatic insights to inform trial design. We encountered significant challenges in recruiting parents and young people for this consultation exercise, and novel recruitment methods need to be considered for future work in this field. Patient and public involvement is essential to ensure that future trials answer parent-relevant questions and have meaningful outcome measures, as well as involving parents and young people in the general development of health care services.

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in newborn infants: review

Background
Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention for critically ill newborn infants with respiratory failure admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Ventilating newborn infants can be challenging due to small tidal volumes, high breathing frequencies, and the use of uncuffed endotracheal tubes. Mechanical ventilation has several short-term, as well as long-term complications. To prevent complications, weaning from the ventilator is started as soon as possible. Weaning aims to support the transfer from full mechanical ventilation support to spontaneous breathing activity.

Objectives
To assess the efficacy of protocolized versus non-protocolized ventilator weaning for newborn infants in reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, the duration of weaning, and shortening the NICU and hospital length of stay. To determine efficacy in predefined subgroups including: gestational age and birth weight; type of protocol; and type of protocol delivery. To establish whether protocolized weaning is safe and clinically effective in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation without increasing the risk of adverse events.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE In-Process and other Non-Indexed Citations and OVID MEDLINE (1950 to 31 July 2015); CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015); EMBASE (1988 to 31 July 2015); and Web of Science (1990 to 15 July 2015). We did not restrict language of publication. We contacted authors of studies with a subgroup of newborn infants in their study, and experts in the field regarding this subject. In addition, we searched abstracts from conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, and reference lists of all identified studies for further relevant studies.

Selection criteria
Randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials that compared protocolized with non-protocolized ventilator weaning practices in newborn infants with a gestational age of 24 weeks or more, who were enrolled in the study before the postnatal age of 28 completed days after the expected date of birth.

Data collection and analysis
Four authors, in pairs, independently reviewed titles and abstracts identified by electronic searches. We retrieved full-text versions of potentially relevant studies.

Main results
Our search yielded 1752 records. We removed duplicates (1062) and irrelevant studies (843). We did not find any randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials conducted on weaning from mechanical ventilation in newborn infants. Two randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria on type of study and type of intervention, but only included a proportion of newborns. The study authors could not provide data needed for subgroup analysis; we excluded both studies.

Authors' conclusions
Based on the results of this review, there is no evidence to support or refute the superiority or inferiority of weaning by protocol over non-protocol weaning on duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in newborn infants.

The impact of nurse-directed protocolised-weaning from mechanical ventilation on nursing practice: A quasi-experimental study

Background:
Internationally, nurse-directed protocolised-weaning has been evaluated by measuring its impact on patient outcomes. The impact on nurses’ views and perceptions has been largely ignored.

Aim:
To determine the change in intensive care nurses’ perceptions, satisfaction, knowledge and attitudes following the introduction of nurse-directed weaning. Additionally, views were obtained on how useful protocolised-weaning was to practice.

Methods:
The sample comprised nurses working in general intensive care units in three university-affiliated hospitals. Nurse-directed protocolised-weaning was implemented in one unit (intervention group); two ICUs continued with usual doctor-led practice (control group). Nurses’ perceptions, satisfaction, knowledge and attitudes were measured by self-completed questionnaires before (Phase I) and after the implementation of nurse-directed weaning (Phase II) in all units.

Results:
Response rates were 79% (n=140n=140) for Phase 1 and 62% (n=132n=132) for Phase II. Regression-based analyses showed that changes from Phase I to Phase II were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Sixty-nine nurses responded to both Phase I and II questionnaires. In the intervention group, these nurses scored their mean perceived level of knowledge higher in Phase II (6.39 vs 7.17, p=0.01p=0.01). In the control group, role perception (4.41 vs 4.22, p=0.01p=0.01) was lower and, perceived knowledge (6.03 vs 6.63, p=0.04p=0.04), awareness of weaning plans (6.09 vs 7.06, p=0.01p=0.01) and satisfaction with communication (5.28 vs 6.19, p=0.01p=0.01) were higher in Phase II. The intervention group found protocolised weaning useful in their practice (75%): this was scored significantly higher by junior and senior nurses than middle grade nurses (p=0.02p=0.02).

Conclusion

We conclude that nurse-directed protocolised-weaning had no effect on nurses’ views and perceptions due to the high level of satisfaction which encouraged nurses’ participation in weaning throughout. Control group changes are attributed to a ‘reactive effect’ from being study participants. Weaning protocols provide a uniform method of weaning practice and are particularly beneficial in providing safe guidance for junior staff.

International perspectives on the influence of structure and process of weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Background 
Recently, clinical and research attention has been focused on refining weaning processes to improve outcomes for critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation. One such process, use of a weaning protocol, has yielded conflicting results, arguably because of the influence of existing context and processes.

Objective 
To compare international data to assess differences in context and processes in intensive care units that could influence weaning.  

Methods 
Review of existing national data on provision of care for critically ill patients, including structure, staffing, skill mix, education, roles, and responsibilities for weaning in intensive care units of selected countries.

Results 
Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom showed similarities in critical care provision, structure, skill mix, and staffing ratios in intensive care units. Weaning in these countries is generally a collaborative process between nurses and physicians. Notable differences in intensive care units in the United States were the frequent use of an open structure and inclusion of respiratory therapists on the intensive care unit’s health care team. Nurses may be excluded from direct management of ventilator weaning in some institutions, as this role is primarily assumed by respiratory therapists guided by medical directives. Availability of critical care beds was highest in the United States and lowest in the United Kingdom.

Conclusion 
Context and processes of care that could influence ventilator weaning outcomes varied considerably across countries. Further quantification of these contextual influences should be considered when translating research findings into local clinical practice and when designing randomized, controlled trials.

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionAutomated weaning 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. Our objective was to compare mechanical ventilator weaning duration for critically ill adults and children when managed with automated 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.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to 30 September 2013 without language restrictions. We also searched conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and article reference lists. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data using random-effects modelling.ResultsWe identified 21 eligible trials totalling 1,676 participants. Pooled data from 16 trials indicated that automated systems reduced the geometric mean weaning duration by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), with substantial heterogeneity (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 with surgical populations or using other systems. Automated systems reduced ventilation duration with no heterogeneity (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of effect on mortality, hospital LOS, reintubation, self-extubation and non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Automated systems reduced prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. Overall quality of evidence was high.ConclusionsAutomated systems may reduce weaning and ventilation duration and ICU stay. Due to substantial trial heterogeneity an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial is needed.

The implausibility of ‘usual care’ in an open system: sedation and weaning practices in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the United Kingdom (UK).

Background
The power of the randomised controlled trial depends upon its capacity to operate in a closed system whereby the intervention is the only causal force acting upon the experimental group and absent in the control group, permitting a valid assessment of intervention efficacy. Conversely, clinical arenas are open systems where factors relating to context, resources, interpretation and actions of individuals will affect implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Consequently, the comparator (usual care) can be difficult to define and variable in multi-centre trials. Hence outcomes cannot be understood without considering usual care and factors that may affect implementation and impact on the intervention.

Methods
Using a fieldwork approach, we describe PICU context, ‘usual’ practice in sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, and factors affecting implementation prior to designing a trial involving a sedation and ventilation weaning intervention. We collected data from 23 UK PICUs between June and November 2014 using observation, individual and multi-disciplinary group interviews with staff.

Results
Pain and sedation practices were broadly similar in terms of drug usage and assessment tools. Sedation protocols linking assessment to appropriate titration of sedatives and sedation holds were rarely used (9 % and 4 % of PICUs respectively). Ventilator weaning was primarily a medical-led process with 39 % of PICUs engaging senior nurses in the process: weaning protocols were rarely used (9 % of PICUs). Weaning methods were variably based on clinician preference. No formal criteria or use of spontaneous breathing trials were used to test weaning readiness. Seventeen PICUs (74 %) had prior engagement in multi-centre trials, but limited research nurse availability. Barriers to previous trial implementation were intervention complexity, lack of belief in the evidence and inadequate training. Facilitating factors were senior staff buy-in and dedicated research nurse provision.

Conclusions
We examined and identified contextual and organisational factors that may impact on the implementation of our intervention. We found usual practice relating to sedation, analgesia and ventilator weaning broadly similar, yet distinctively different from our proposed intervention, providing assurance in our ability to evaluate intervention effects. The data will enable us to develop an implementation plan; considering these factors we can more fully understand their impact on study outcomes.

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.

Weaning from ventilation

Aims/purpose: Getting off the ventilator is an important patient-centred outcome for patients with acute respiratory failure. It signifies an improvement in patient condition, enables easier communication, reduces fear and anxiety and consequently a reduced requirement for sedatives. Weaning from ventilation therefore is a core ICU nursing task that is addressed in this presentation.
Presentation description: There are different schools of thought on when ventilator weaning begins including: (a) from intubation with titration of support; and (b) only when the patient’s condition improves. There are also different schools of thought on how to wean including gradual reductions in ventilator support to: (a) a low level consistent with extubation; or (b) to a level to attempt a spontaneous breathing trial followed by extubation if successful. Regardless of the approach, what is patient-relevant is the need to determine early when the patient may be ‘ready’ to discontinue ventilation. This time point can be assessed using simple criteria and should involve all ICU staff to the level of their experience. This presentation challenges the notion that only senior nurses or nurses with a ‘weaning course’ should be involved in the weaning process and proposes opportunities for engaging nurses with all levels of experience.
Conclusion: An ICU nursing taskforce that is focused and engaged in determining patient readiness for weaning can make a strong contribution to patient-relevant outcomes.

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.

Decisional responsibility for mechanical ventilation and weaning: an international survey

Introduction: Optimal management of mechanical ventilation and weaning requires dynamic and collaborative decision making to minimize complications and avoid delays in the transition to extubation. In the absence of collaboration, ventilation decision making may be fragmented, inconsistent, and delayed. Our objective was to describe the professional group with responsibility for key ventilation and weaning decisions and to examine organizational characteristics associated with nurse involvement.

Methods: A multi-center, cross-sectional, self-administered survey was sent to nurse managers of adult intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and United Kingdom (UK). We summarized data as proportions (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) and calculated odds ratios (OR) to examine ICU organizational variables associated with collaborative decision making.

Results: Response rates ranged from 39% (UK) to 92% (Switzerland), providing surveys from 586 ICUs. Interprofessional collaboration (nurses and physicians) was the most common approach to initial selection of ventilator settings (63% (95% CI 59 to 66)), determination of extubation readiness (71% (67 to 75)), weaning method (73% (69 to 76)), recognition of weaning failure (84% (81 to 87)) and weaning readiness (85% (82 to 87)), and titration of ventilator settings (88% (86 to 91)). A nurse-to-patient ratio other than 1:1 was associated with decreased interprofessional collaboration during titration of ventilator settings (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6), weaning method (0.4 (0.2 to 0.9)), determination of extubation readiness (0.5 (0.2 to 0.9)) and weaning failure (0.4 (0.1 to 1.0)). Use of a weaning protocol was associated with increased collaborative decision making for determining weaning (1.8 (1.0 to 3.3)) and extubation readiness (1.9 (1.2 to 3.0)), and weaning method (1.8 (1.1 to 3.0)). Country of ICU location influenced the profile of responsibility for all decisions. Automated weaning modes were used in 55% of ICUs.

Conclusions: Collaborative decision making for ventilation and weaning was employed in most ICUs in all countries although this was influenced by nurse-to-patient ratio, presence of a protocol, and varied across countries. Potential clinical implications of a lack of collaboration include delayed adaptation of ventilation to changing physiological parameters, and delayed recognition of weaning and extubation readiness resulting in unnecessary prolongation of ventilation.

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.

Compared with specialist registrars, experienced staff nurses shorten the duration of weaning neonates from mechanical ventilation

OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall performance of specially trained neonatal nurses acting autonomously, unsupervised, and without a protocol with specialist registrars when weaning neonates from mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: A single neonatal intensive care unit.

PATIENTS: Neonates requiring conventional mechanical ventilation (n = 50).

INTERVENTIONS: Infants on conventional ventilation were randomly assigned to receive either nurse-led (n = 25) or registrar-led (n = 23) weaning. A total of 48 infants completed the study (two infants in the registrar group were excluded when their parents withdrew consent).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measure, median weaning time, was 1200 mins (95% confidence interval [CI], 621-1779 mins) in the nurse group and 3015 mins (95% CI, 2650-3380 mins) in the registrar group (p = .0458). The median time from treatment assignment to the first ventilator change was 60 mins (95% CI, 52-68 mins) in the nurse group and 120 mins (95% CI, 103-137 mins) in the registrar group (p = .35). On average, the nurses made ventilator changes every 4.5 hrs (95% CI, 2.9-6 hrs) and the registrars every 7.2 hrs (95% CI, 5.4-9 hrs; p = .003). The median number (range) of backward steps taken per infant was 0 (0-5 steps) in the nurse group and 1 (0-5 steps) in the registrar group (p = .019).

CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that additional domains of neonatal critical care could be reviewed for their potential transfer to appropriately prepared nurses.