To assess whether a systematic approach to weaning and extubation (intervention) is superior to the sole physician’s judgment (control) in preventing reintubation secondary to extubation failure in patients with neurologic disorders.
Randomized controlled trial.
Intensive care unit of a large teaching hospital.
Three hundred eighteen intubated patients who had been receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 12 hrs and were able to trigger the ventilator.
Patients were randomized to the intervention (n = 165) or control group (n = 153).
Rate of reintubation after extubation failure occurring within 48 hrs (primary end point). Duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, mortality, rate of tracheotomy (secondary end points). The perception of the research protocol by the intensive care unit staff was also assessed.
The rate of reintubation was lower in the intervention (5%) than in the control (12.5%) group (p = 0.047). There was no difference in any of the other outcome variables (secondary end points). Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II (adjusted odds ratio 1.042 per unit; 95% confidence interval 1.006–1.080; p = 0.022) and inclusion in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.393; 95% confidence interval 1.000–5.726; p = 0.05) were the only two independent predictive factors for the risk of extubation failure. The protocol was felt by the staff to determine an improvement in patients’ clinical outcome, but to increase intensive care unit workload; nurses and physiotherapists considered its impact on their professional role more positively than physicians.
In patients with neurologic diseases, a systematic approach to weaning and extubation reduces the rate of reintubation secondary to extubation failure without affecting the duration of mechanical ventilation, and is overall positively perceived by intensive care unit professionals.
On completion of this article, the reader should be able to:
- Explain the protocol used in the intervention group.
- Explain the pros and cons identified related to protocol use.
- Demonstrate this information in a clinical setting.
The authors have disclosed that they have no financial relationships with or interests in any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity.
All faculty and staff in a position to control the content of this CME activity have disclosed that they have no financial relationship with, or financial interests in, any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity.
Lippincott CME Institute, Inc., has identified and resolved all faculty conflicts of interest regarding this educational activity.
Visit the Critical Care Medicine Web Site (www.ccmjournal.org) for information on obtaining continuing medical education credit.
Head (PN), Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Universit Hospital “Maggiore della Carità,” Eastern Piedmont University, Novara, Italy; Respiratory Physiotherapist (PF), Spinal Cord Unit, Niguarda Ca’ Granda Hospital, Milano, Italy; Anesthesist (MPM), Emergency Department, Niguarda Ca’ Granda Hospital, Milano, Italy; Respiratory Physiotherapist (MS), Emergency Department, Niguarda Ca’ Granda Hospital, Milano, Italy; Head (SV), Emergency Department, Niguarda Ca’ Granda Hospital, Milano, Italy; Doctor in Statistics (PB), University of Pavia and S. Maugeri Foundation, Pavia, Italy; and Clinical Risk Manager (AL), Emergency Department, Niguarda Ca’ Granda Hospital, Milano, Italy.
Supported in part by Azienda Ospedaliera “Niguarda Ca’ Granda” (Milano, Italy) that provided salary support for Pamela Frigerio, Maurizio Sommariva, Maria Pia Moretti, Sergio Vesconi, and Anna Levati, who were full-time institutional employees at the time this study was conducted.
The authors have not disclosed any potential conflicts of interest.
The trial allocated the Australian Clinical Trial Registration (www.actr.org.au) (ACTRN012607000115437).
For information regarding this article, E-mail: email@example.com