{"title":"Short (30 Minutes) versus long (120 Minutes) spontaneous breathing trial among patients with difficult weaning (SL-SBT Trial)","authors":"Vijay Hadda , Arunachalam Meenakshisundaram , Saurabh Mittal , Karan Madan , Pawan Tiwari , Tejas Menon Suri , Maroof Ahmad Khan , Anant Mohan","doi":"10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The optimal duration of spontaneous breath trial (SBT) for patients with difficult extubation from mechanical ventilation is unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study compared extubation success with two different durations of SBT in patients who failed their first SBT.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-center randomized controlled trial included adults on mechanical ventilation who had failed their first SBT. The participants were randomized to receive pressure support ventilation (PSV) for either 30 or 120 min. Our primary outcome was the rate of successful extubation (without reintubation within 48 h). Key secondary outcomes were the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay and in-hospital and 90-day mortality.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 119 patients (62.2 % male) with a mean age of 53.9 years were randomized to undergo SBT for either 30 min (<em>n</em> = 60) or 120 min (<em>n</em> = 59). Among them, 82.4 % of patients had hypercapnic respiratory failure. The rates of successful extubation were similar with SBT of 30 min and 120 min (58.3 % vs. 59.3 %, respectively; <em>p</em> = 0.91). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the durations of ICU and hospital stay or in-hospital and 90-day mortality.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Extubation success and other clinically important outcomes were comparable between short (30 min) and long (120 min) SBT in difficult weaning. A 30-minute SBT may be acceptable in this setting.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55064,"journal":{"name":"Heart & Lung","volume":"69 ","pages":"Pages 217-221"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart & Lung","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147956324002000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The optimal duration of spontaneous breath trial (SBT) for patients with difficult extubation from mechanical ventilation is unknown.
Objective
This study compared extubation success with two different durations of SBT in patients who failed their first SBT.
Methods
This single-center randomized controlled trial included adults on mechanical ventilation who had failed their first SBT. The participants were randomized to receive pressure support ventilation (PSV) for either 30 or 120 min. Our primary outcome was the rate of successful extubation (without reintubation within 48 h). Key secondary outcomes were the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay and in-hospital and 90-day mortality.
Results
A total of 119 patients (62.2 % male) with a mean age of 53.9 years were randomized to undergo SBT for either 30 min (n = 60) or 120 min (n = 59). Among them, 82.4 % of patients had hypercapnic respiratory failure. The rates of successful extubation were similar with SBT of 30 min and 120 min (58.3 % vs. 59.3 %, respectively; p = 0.91). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the durations of ICU and hospital stay or in-hospital and 90-day mortality.
Conclusions
Extubation success and other clinically important outcomes were comparable between short (30 min) and long (120 min) SBT in difficult weaning. A 30-minute SBT may be acceptable in this setting.
期刊介绍:
Heart & Lung: The Journal of Cardiopulmonary and Acute Care, the official publication of The American Association of Heart Failure Nurses, presents original, peer-reviewed articles on techniques, advances, investigations, and observations related to the care of patients with acute and critical illness and patients with chronic cardiac or pulmonary disorders.
The Journal''s acute care articles focus on the care of hospitalized patients, including those in the critical and acute care settings. Because most patients who are hospitalized in acute and critical care settings have chronic conditions, we are also interested in the chronically critically ill, the care of patients with chronic cardiopulmonary disorders, their rehabilitation, and disease prevention. The Journal''s heart failure articles focus on all aspects of the care of patients with this condition. Manuscripts that are relevant to populations across the human lifespan are welcome.