Comparison of Spontaneous Breathing Trials in Clinical Practice and Current Clinical Practice Guidelines.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Respiratory care Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1089/respcare.12478
Morgan E Sorg, Kristen L McHenry
{"title":"Comparison of Spontaneous Breathing Trials in Clinical Practice and Current Clinical Practice Guidelines.","authors":"Morgan E Sorg, Kristen L McHenry","doi":"10.1089/respcare.12478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The literature suggests there is variability in the clinical practice of spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). Evidence-based literature and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published over time to address various aspects of SBT implementation. It can take many years for evidence-based recommendations to be adopted into clinical practice. The American Association for Respiratory Care recently published a CPG addressing 4 aspects of SBT implementation. <b>Methods:</b> This study evaluated how the clinical practice of SBTs compares to the recommendations of the CPG. An online survey was developed to assess how hospitals with SBT protocols perform different components of SBTs. Descriptive statistics were used in the data analysis. <b>Results:</b> A total of 26 representatives from different health care institutions in the United States met the criteria for data analysis; 61.5% of reported protocols use rapid shallow breathing index, which is not in alignment with the current recommendation; 77% reported the use of pressure support (PS); 11.5% specified the use of a T-piece, and 11% specified the option of either PS or T-piece during the SBT. The responses were 100% in alignment with the current recommendation of performing a SBT with or without support; 73.1% aligned with having a standardized approach to performing SBTs by specifying when the SBT will be initiated; 65.4% perform an SBT during the day, though it was not specified if it occurs before noon each day; 53.8% allow for an increase in F<sub>IO<sub>2</sub></sub> during an SBT, which is not in alignment with the current recommendations. <b>Conclusions:</b> The reported hospitals' protocols demonstrated moderate alignment with the 4 CPG recommendations. Identifying current discrepancies between clinical practice and CPGs will allow for the assessment of the adoption of recommendations into clinical practice over time. Further assessment could be performed to determine if there is an impact on patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/respcare.12478","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The literature suggests there is variability in the clinical practice of spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). Evidence-based literature and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published over time to address various aspects of SBT implementation. It can take many years for evidence-based recommendations to be adopted into clinical practice. The American Association for Respiratory Care recently published a CPG addressing 4 aspects of SBT implementation. Methods: This study evaluated how the clinical practice of SBTs compares to the recommendations of the CPG. An online survey was developed to assess how hospitals with SBT protocols perform different components of SBTs. Descriptive statistics were used in the data analysis. Results: A total of 26 representatives from different health care institutions in the United States met the criteria for data analysis; 61.5% of reported protocols use rapid shallow breathing index, which is not in alignment with the current recommendation; 77% reported the use of pressure support (PS); 11.5% specified the use of a T-piece, and 11% specified the option of either PS or T-piece during the SBT. The responses were 100% in alignment with the current recommendation of performing a SBT with or without support; 73.1% aligned with having a standardized approach to performing SBTs by specifying when the SBT will be initiated; 65.4% perform an SBT during the day, though it was not specified if it occurs before noon each day; 53.8% allow for an increase in FIO2 during an SBT, which is not in alignment with the current recommendations. Conclusions: The reported hospitals' protocols demonstrated moderate alignment with the 4 CPG recommendations. Identifying current discrepancies between clinical practice and CPGs will allow for the assessment of the adoption of recommendations into clinical practice over time. Further assessment could be performed to determine if there is an impact on patient outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
期刊最新文献
Low-Pressure Heliox-Based Rebreather System to Reduce Work of Breathing and Conserve Gas. Is Replacing Long-Acting Inhalers With Short-Acting Nebulizers Truly Cost-Effective? The Verdict Is Still Out. Prediction of Weaning Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Using Diaphragmatic Excursion With Tissue Doppler Imaging Variables of the Diaphragm. Tracheal Stoma Closure and Healing Time in a Post-Acute Setting. Estimating Patient Breathing Effort During Noninvasive Ventilation: Is It Possible?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1