A randomised, controlled trial of conventional versus automated weaning from mechanical ventilation using SmartcareTM/PS

Objective
Preliminary assessment of an automated weaning system (SmartCare™/PS) compared to usual management of weaning from mechanical ventilation performed in the absence of formal protocols.


Design and setting
A randomised, controlled pilot study in one Australian intensive care unit.


Patients
A total of 102 patients were equally divided between SmartCare/PS and Control.

Interventions
The automated system titrated pressure support, conducted a spontaneous breathing trial and provided notification of success (“separation potential”).

Measurements and results
The median time from the first identified point of suitability for weaning commencement to the state of “separation potential” using SmartCare/PS was 20 h (interquartile range, IQR, 2–40) compared to 8 h (IQR 2–43) with Control (log-rank P = 0.3). The median time to successful extubation was 43 h (IQR 6–169) using SmartCare/PS and 40 (14–87) with Control (log-rank P = 0.6). Unadjusted, the estimated probability of reaching “separation potential” was 21% lower (95% CI, 48% lower to 20% greater) with SmartCare/PS compared to Control. Adjusted for other covariates (age, gender, APACHE II, SOFAmax, neuromuscular blockade, corticosteroids, coma and elevated blood glucose), these estimates were 31% lower (95% CI, 56% lower to 9% greater) with SmartCare/PS. The study groups showed comparable rates of reintubation, non-invasive ventilation post-extubation, tracheostomy, sedation, neuromuscular blockade and use of corticosteroids.

Conclusions
Substantial reductions in weaning duration previously demonstrated were not confirmed when the SmartCare/PS system was compared to weaning managed by experienced critical care specialty nurses, using a 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio. The effect of SmartCare/PS may be influenced by the local clinical organisational context.

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.

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

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of weaning by protocol for invasively ventilated critically ill children.

To compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of critically ill children who are weaned using protocols versus usual (non-protocolized) practice.
To ascertain any differences between protocolized weaning and usual care in terms of mortality, adverse events, ICU length of stay, and quality of life.

Determinant factors for mortality of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and effects of a protocol muscle training in weaning

Introduction: Prognostic factors are used in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) to predict morbidity and mortality , especially in patients on mechanical ventilation (MV ) . Training protocols are used in MV patients with the aim of promoting the success of the weaning process. Objective: To assess which variables determine the outcome of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and compare the effects of two protocols for weaning. Method: Patients under MV for more than 48 hours had collected the following information: sex, age , ideal weight, height , Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), risk of mortality, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and index Quick and perfunctory (IRRS) breathing. Patients with unsuccessful weaning performed one of weaning protocols: Progressive T - tube or tube - T + Threshold ® IMT. Patients were compared for outcome (death or non- death in the ICU ) and the protocols through the t test or Mann-Whitney test was considered significant when P <0.05. Results: Of 128 patients evaluated 56.25% were men, the mean age was 60.05 ± 17.85 years and 40.62 % patients died, and they had higher APACHE II scores, mortality risk, time VM and IRRS GCS and the lower value (p<0.05). The age, initial and final maximal inspiratory pressure, time of weaning and duration of MV was similar between protocols. Conclusion: The study suggests that the GCS, APACHE II risk of mortality, length of MV and IRRS variables determined the evolution of MV patients in this sample. Not found differences in the variables studied when comparing the two methods of weaning.

Comparison of 3 modes of automated weaning from mechanical ventilation: A bench study

Purpose: Automated weaning modes are available in some mechanical ventilators, but no studies compared them hitherto. We compared the performance of 3 automated modes under standard and challenging situations. Methods: We used a lung simulator to compare 3 automated modes, adaptive support ventilation (ASV), mandatory rate ventilation (MRV), and Smartcare, in 6 situations, weaning success, weaning failure, weaning success with extreme anxiety, weaning success with Cheyne-Stokes, weaning success with irregular breathing, and weaning failure with ineffective efforts. Results: The 3 modes correctly recognized the situations of weaning success and failure, even when anxiety or irregular breathing were present but incorrectly recognized weaning success with Cheyne-Stokes. MRV incorrectly recognized weaning failure with ineffective efforts. Time to pressure support (PS) stabilization was shorter for ASV (1-2 minutes for all situations) and MRV (1-7 minutes) than for Smartcare (8-78 minutes). ASV had higher rates of PS oscillations per 5 minutes (4-15), compared with Smartcare (0-1) and MRV (0-12), except when extreme anxiety was present. Conclusions: Smartcare, ASV, and MRV were equally able to recognize weaning success and failure, despite the presence of anxiety or irregular breathing but performed incorrectly in the presence of Cheyne-Stokes. PS behavior over the time differs among modes, with ASV showing larger and more frequent PS oscillations over the time. Clinical studies are needed to confirm our results. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation: effects of process optimization outside a clinical trial

PURPOSE: We studied the effects of reorganization and changes in the care process, including use of protocols for sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, on the use of sedative and analgesic drugs and on length of respiratory support and stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three cohorts of 100 mechanically ventilated ICU patients, admitted in 1999 (baseline), 2000 (implementation I, after a change in ICU organization and in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches), and 2001 (implementation II, after introduction of protocols for weaning from mechanical ventilation and sedation), were studied retrospectively. RESULTS: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), diagnostic groups, and number of organ failures were similar in all groups. Data are reported as median (interquartile range).Time on mechanical ventilation decreased from 18 (7-41) (baseline) to 12 (7-27) hours (implementation II) (P = .046), an effect which was entirely attributable to noninvasive ventilation, and length of ICU stay decreased in survivors from 37 (21-71) to 25 (19-63) hours (P = .049). The amount of morphine (P = .001) and midazolam (P = .050) decreased, whereas the amount of propofol (P = .052) and fentanyl increased (P = .001). Total Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 (TISS-28) per patient decreased from 137 (99-272) to 113 (87-256) points (P = .009). Intensive care unit mortality was 19% (baseline), 8% (implementation I), and 7% (implementation II) (P = .020). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in organizational and care processes were associated with an altered pattern of sedative and analgesic drug prescription, a decrease in length of (noninvasive) respiratory support and length of stay in survivors, and decreases in resource use as measured by TISS-28 and mortality.