Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients (Review)

BACKGROUND: Reducing weaning time is desirable in minimizing potential complications from mechanical ventilation. Standardized weaning protocols are purported to reduce time spent on mechanical ventilation. However, evidence supporting their use in clinical practice is inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation on the total duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults; ascertain differences between protocolized and non-protocolized weaning in terms of mortality, adverse events, quality of life, weaning duration, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS); and explore variation in outcomes by type of ICU, type of protocol and approach to delivering the protocol.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to 2010), EMBASE (1988 to 2010), CINAHL (1937 to 2010), LILACS (1982 to 2010), ISI Web of Science and ISI Conference Proceedings (1970 to 2010), Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (inception to 2010) and reference lists of articles. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of protocolized weaning versus non-protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. A priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials that included 1971 patients met the inclusion criteria. The total duration of mechanical ventilation geometric mean in the protocolized weaning group was on average reduced by 25% compared with the usual care group (N = 10 trials, 95% CI 9% to 39%, P = 0.006); weaning duration was reduced by 78% (N = 6 trials, 95% CI 31% to 93%, P = 0.009); and ICU LOS by 10% (N = 8 trials, 95% CI 2% to 19%, P = 0.02). There was significant heterogeneity among studies for total duration of mechanical ventilation (I(2) = 76%, P <0.01) and weaning duration (I(2) = 97%, P <0.01), which could not be explained by subgroup analyses based on type of unit or type of approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence of a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, weaning duration and ICU LOS with use of standardized protocols, but there is significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies to investigate the source of this heterogeneity. Although some study authors suggest that organizational context may influence outcomes, these factors were not considered in all included studies and therefore could not be evaluated.

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients

Background:Mechanical ventilation is a critical component of paediatric intensive care therapy. It is indicated when the patient’s spontaneous ventilation is inadequate to sustain life. Weaning is the gradual reduction of ventilatory support and the transfer of respiratory control back to the patient. Weaning may represent a large proportion of the ventilatory period. Prolonged ventilation is associated with significant morbidity, hospital cost, psychosocial and physical risks to the child and even death. Timely and effective weaning may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and may reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged ventilation. However, no consensus has been reached on criteria that can be used to identify when patients are ready to wean or the best way to achieve it.Objectives:To assess the effects of weaning by protocol on invasively ventilated critically ill children. To compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of critically ill children who are weaned using protocols versus those weaned through usual (non-protocolized) practice. To ascertain any differences between protocolized weaning and usual care in terms of mortality, adverse events, intensive care unit length of stay and quality of life.Search methods:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012), EMBASE (1988 to October 2012), CINAHL (1982 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science and LILACS. We identified unpublished data in the Web of Science (1990 to October 2012), ISI Conference Proceedings (1990 to October 2012) and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (earliest to October 2012). We contacted first authors of studies included in the review to obtain further information on unpublished studies or work in progress. We searched reference lists of all identified studies and review papers for further relevant studies. We applied no language or publication restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials comparing protocolized weaning (professional-led or computer-driven) versus non-protocolized weaning practice conducted in children older than 28 days and younger than 18 years.Data collection and analysis:Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts identified by electronic searching. Three review authors retrieved and evaluated full-text versions of potentially relevant studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.Main results:We included three trials at low risk of bias with 321 children in the analysis. Protocolized weaning significantly reduced total ventilation time in the largest trial (260 children) by a mean of 32 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8 to 56; P = 0.01). Two other trials (30 and 31 children, respectively) reported non-significant reductions with a mean difference of -88 hours (95% CI -228 to 52; P = 0.2) and -24 hours (95% CI -10 to 58; P = 0.06). Protocolized weaning significantly reduced weaning time in these two smaller trials for a mean reduction of 106 hours (95% CI 28 to 184; P = 0.007) and 21 hours (95% CI 9 to 32; P < 0.001). These studies reported no significant effects for duration of mechanical ventilation before weaning, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and hospital length of stay, PICU mortality or adverse events.Authors' conclusions:Limited evidence suggests that weaning protocols reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, but evidence is inadequate to show whether the achievement of shorter ventilation by protocolized weaning causes children benefit or harm.

Weaning from mechanical ventilation: a scoping review of qualitative studies

Background; Weaning from mechanical ventilation is influenced by patient, clinician, and organizational factors.

Objective: To identify factors that may influence weaning and adoption of weaning strategies and tools, clinicians’ perceptions of weaning strategies, and weaning experiences of patients and patients’ families.

Method: A scoping review of indexed and nonindexed publications (1990–2012) was done. Qualitative studies of health care providers, patients, and patients’ families involved in weaning were included. Two investigators independently screened 8350 publications and extracted data from 43 studies. Study themes were content analyzed to identify common categories and themes within the categories.

Results: The study sample consisted of nurses in 15 studies, nurses and patients in 1 study, various health care providers in 11, patients in 10, and physicians in 4. Categories identified were as follows: for nurses, role or scope of practice, informing decision making, and influence on weaning outcome; for health care providers, factors influencing weaning decisions or use of protocols, role or scope of practice related to weaning, and organizational structure or practice environment; for patients, experience of mechanical ventilation and weaning, experience of the intensive care environment, psychological phenomena, and enabling success in weaning; and for physicians, tools or factors to facilitate weaning decisions and perceptions of nurses’ role and scope of practice.

Conclusions: Important issues identified were perceived importance of interprofessional collaboration and communication, need to combine subjective knowledge of the patient with objective clinical data, balancing of weaning systematization with individual needs, and appreciation of the physical and psychological work of weaning.