Spontaneous Breathing Trials With T-Piece or Pressure Support Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are among the most commonly employed techniques to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation. The preferred SBT technique, however, is still unclear. To clarify the preferable SBT (T-piece or pressure support ventilation [PSV]), we conducted this systematic review. We then searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciELO, Google Scholar, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases through June 2015, without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials involving adult subjects being weaned from mechanical ventilation comparing T-piece with PSV and reporting (1) weaning failure, (2) re-intubation rate, (3) ICU mortality, or (4) weaning duration. Anticipating clinical heterogeneity among the included studies, we compared prespecified subgroups: (1) simple, difficult, or prolonged weaning and (2) subjects with COPD. We summarized the quality of evidence for intervention effects using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. We identified 3,674 potentially relevant studies and reviewed 23 papers in full. Twelve studies (2,161 subjects) met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the evidence was of very low to low quality. SBT technique did not influence weaning success (risk ratio 1.23 [0.94-1.61]), ICU mortality (risk ratio 1.11 [0.80-1.54]), or re-intubation rate (risk ratio 1.21 [0.90-1.63]). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that PSV might be superior to T-piece with regard to weaning success for simple-to-wean subjects (risk ratio 1.44 [1.11-1.86]). For the prolonged-weaning subgroup, however, T-piece was associated with a shorter weaning duration (weighted mean difference -3.08 [-5.24 to -0.92] d). In conclusion, low-quality evidence is available concerning this topic. PSV may be associated with lower weaning failure rates in the simple-to-wean subgroup. In contrast, in prolonged-weaning subjects, T-piece may be related to a shorter weaning duration, although this is at high risk of bias. Further study of the difficult-to-wean and COPD subgroups is required.
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 | 0.033 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".