A Pilot Randomized Trial Comparing Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation on Pressure Support Versus Proportional Assist Ventilation*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite protocols incorporating spontaneous breathing trials, 31% of ICU patients experience difficult or prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation. Nonfatiguing modes such as pressure support ventilation are recommended. Proportional assist ventilation provides assistance in proportion to patient effort, which may optimize weaning. However, it is not known how proportional assist ventilation performs relative to pressure support ventilation over a prolonged period in the complex ICU setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the physiologic and clinical performance (failure rate), safety, and feasibility of protocols using daily spontaneous breathing trial plus pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation until ventilation discontinuation. DESIGN: Single-center, unblinded pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients intubated greater than 36 hours were randomized if they met eligibility criteria for partial ventilatory support, tolerated pressure support ventilation greater than or equal to 30 minutes, and either failed or did not meet criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to the pressure support ventilation or proportional assist ventilation protocol (PAV+, Puritan Bennett 840; Covidien, Boulder, CO). Both protocols used progressive decreases in level of assistance as tolerated, coupled with daily assessment for spontaneous breathing trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 54 patients randomized, outcome data are available for 50 patients; 27 were randomized to receive proportional assist ventilation and 23 to receive pressure support ventilation. There were no adverse events linked to the study interventions, and protocol violations were infrequent. Recruitment was slower than projected (1.3 patients per month). The median (interquartile range) time from randomization to successful extubation was 3.9 days (2.8-8.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 4.9 days (2.9-26.3 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.39). Time to live ICU discharge was 7.3 days (5.2-11.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 12.4 days (7.5-30.8 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the utility, safety, and feasibility of the weaning protocols and provides important information to guide the design of a future randomized controlled trial comparing weaning from mechanical ventilation on pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".