Critical care medicine · 2020
Premature, Opportune, and Delayed Weaning in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Call for Implementation of Weaning Protocols in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diaz-Soto Maria P, Morgan Brooks W, Davalos Long, Herrera Phabiola, Denney Joshua, Roldan Rollin, Paz Enrique, Jaymez Amador A, Chirinos Eduardo E, Portugal Jose, Quispe Rocio, Brower Roy G, Checkley William, INTENSIVOS Cohort Study
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Weaning protocols establish readiness-to-wean criteria to determine the opportune moment to conduct a spontaneous breathing trial. Weaning protocols have not been widely adopted or evaluated in ICUs in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to compare clinical outcomes between participants whose weaning trials were retrospectively determined to have been premature, opportune, or delayed based on when they met readiness-to-wean criteria.
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter observational study.
SETTING: Five medical ICUs in four public hospitals in Lima, Perú.
SUBJECTS: Adults with acute respiratory failure and at least 24 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 1,657).
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We established six readiness-to-wean criteria and retrospectively categorized our sample into three weaning groups: 1) premature: if the weaning trial took place before fulfilling all criteria, 2) opportune: if the weaning trial took place within 24 hours after fulfilling the criteria, and 3) delayed: if the weaning trial took place over 24 hours after fulfilling criteria. We compared 90-day mortality, ventilator-free days, ICU-free days, and hospital-free days between premature, opportune, and delayed weaning groups. In our sample, 761 participants (60.8%) were classified as having a premature weaning trial, 196 underwent opportune weaning (15.7%), and 295 experienced delayed weaning (23.6%). There was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between the groups. Both the premature and delayed weaning groups had poorer clinical outcomes with fewer ventilator-free days (-2.18, p = 0.008) and (-3.49, p < 0.001), ICU-free days (-2.25, p = 0.001) and (-3.72, p < 0.001), and hospital-free days (-2.76, p = 0.044) and (-4.53, p = 0.004), respectively, compared with the opportune weaning group.
CONCLUSIONS: Better clinical outcomes occur with opportune weaning compared with premature and delayed weaning. If readiness-to-wean criteria can be applied in resource-limited settings, it may improve ICU outcomes associated with opportune weaning.
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter observational study.
SETTING: Five medical ICUs in four public hospitals in Lima, Perú.
SUBJECTS: Adults with acute respiratory failure and at least 24 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 1,657).
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We established six readiness-to-wean criteria and retrospectively categorized our sample into three weaning groups: 1) premature: if the weaning trial took place before fulfilling all criteria, 2) opportune: if the weaning trial took place within 24 hours after fulfilling the criteria, and 3) delayed: if the weaning trial took place over 24 hours after fulfilling criteria. We compared 90-day mortality, ventilator-free days, ICU-free days, and hospital-free days between premature, opportune, and delayed weaning groups. In our sample, 761 participants (60.8%) were classified as having a premature weaning trial, 196 underwent opportune weaning (15.7%), and 295 experienced delayed weaning (23.6%). There was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between the groups. Both the premature and delayed weaning groups had poorer clinical outcomes with fewer ventilator-free days (-2.18, p = 0.008) and (-3.49, p < 0.001), ICU-free days (-2.25, p = 0.001) and (-3.72, p < 0.001), and hospital-free days (-2.76, p = 0.044) and (-4.53, p = 0.004), respectively, compared with the opportune weaning group.
CONCLUSIONS: Better clinical outcomes occur with opportune weaning compared with premature and delayed weaning. If readiness-to-wean criteria can be applied in resource-limited settings, it may improve ICU outcomes associated with opportune weaning.