Weaning from Mechanical ventilation: The Evidence from Clinical Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical ventilation incurs substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. Both premature extubation and delayed extubation can cause harm. Therefore, weaning that is both expeditious and safe is highly desirable. The purpose of this review is to summarize the literature related to weaning modes, spontaneous breathing trials, weaning predictors, weaning with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and weaning protocols. We used 5 computerized databases and a duplicate independent review process to select articles for this review. We included randomized clinical trials evaluating any weaning interventions and nonrandomized trials of weaning predictors, with a focus on studies reporting clinically important outcomes. We abstracted quantitative data using several metrics and pooled results across studies only when our assessment of the patients, interventions, and outcomes indicated that pooling was legitimate. The available clinical research evidence suggests that, for progressive weaning of the level of mechanical support, it may be best to choose modes other than synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and it is unreasonable to be dogmatic about the use of other modes. There may also be substantial benefits to early extubation with back-up institution of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, as needed, though this remains an experimental approach. For trials of spontaneous breathing, low levels of pressure support may hasten extubation. We did not uncover any consistently powerful weaning predictors, suggesting that formal use of predictors in patients being considered for reduction or discontinuation of mechanical support is unlikely to improve patient care. The likely explanation is that clinicians already fully consider information from weaning predictors in choosing patients for trials of reduction or discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Finally, implementation of respiratory therapist- or nurse-driven protocols may be useful for all phases of weaning, and clinicians should adopt daily assessment for a trial of unassisted breathing as a safe method to reduce the duration of mechanical 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 | 0.057 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".