Decannulation Following Tracheostomy in Children: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rationale: There are currently no consensus guidelines on pediatric tracheostomy decannulation. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on existing pediatric decannulation protocols, including the role of polysomnography, and their clinical outcomes. Methods: Five databases, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies from database inception to May 29, 2020. Study inclusion was limited to publications that evaluated tracheostomy decannulation in children 18 years of age and younger. Independent reviewers extracted data including patient demographics and primary indication for tracheostomy. Methods used to assess readiness for decannulation were noted including the use of bronchoscopy, tracheostomy tube modifications, and gas exchange measurements. After decannulation, details regarding mode of ventilation, location and length of observation period, and clinical outcomes were also collected. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. This review is written in agreement with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and is registered (ID: CRD42020155791) on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Results: A total of 23 studies with 1328 children were included in the systematic review (Figure Tracheostomy indications included upper airway obstruction at a well-defined anatomic site (37%), upper airway obstruction not at a well-defined site (13%) and need for long-term ventilation (50%). Bronchoscopy was routinely used in 96% of protocols. Tracheostomy tube modifications in the protocols included capping (83%), downsizing (57%), and fenestrations (9%). Measurements of gas exchanged in the protocols included polysomnography (72%), oximetry (61%), blood gases (17%), and capnography with end-tidal CO2 (17%). After tracheostomy decannulation, children in 92% of protocols were transitioned to room air and 38% of protocols used non-invasive ventilation. Most children (76%) were observed in hospital for 48 hours or less. Of all decannulation attempts, 79% were successful. Overall risk of bias in the included studies was low. Conclusions: The absence of clear evidence-based guidelines in pediatric tracheostomy decannulation has led to large variability in clinical practice. To our knowledge, this is the largest review of pediatric decannulation protocols. Most protocols include bronchoscopy, tube modifications, gas exchange measurements, and brief hospital admission. Polysomnography plays an integral role in assessing the majority of children for tracheostomy removal. Evidence-based guidelines to standardize pediatric tracheostomy decannulation remain an urgent priority.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».