medigraphic.com
ISSN 2448-8909 (Print)

2016, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Med Crit 2016; 30 (4)

Effectiveness of automated weaning protocol (SmartCare®) compared to nonautomated weaning protocols for mechanical ventilation withdrawal in adult patients on Intensive Care Unit

Aguilar AMF, Escalante CA, Góngora MJJ, López AVG, Cetina CMA, Magdaleno LGA

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 222-229
PDF size: 218.36 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Weaning from mechanical ventilation takes up to 40% from mechanical ventilation length. Last generation ventilators came up with new automated weaning protocols, based on respiratory dynamic measures to adjust onto patients demands; the objective of this protocol is a faster and easier transition prior extubation and prevent extubation failure. In this study a comparison is made between nonautomated weaning protocols vs an automated protocol.
Methods: This study is an open, controlled, clinical trial; patients were randomized in three groups by the time they were admitted to the ICU. S group, correspond to automated weaning protocol SmartCare®, P group correspond to nonautomated weaning protocol Support Pressure and T group correspond to nonautomated weaning protocol T piece, until 30 patients were enrolled in every group. At ICU admission data about demographic and severity scales was collected. Every patient was ventilated with mechanical ventilator Draeger Evita Xl® model. By the time weaning protocol started, measurement of haemodynamic variables were taken in 5 different times; it was established as a successful extubation once the patient fulfill 48 hours without necessity of invasive or non invasive respiratory mechanical support.
Results: Average weaning time on S group was 93 ± 12 min., P group was 189 ± 21 min. and in T group was 198 ± 17 min., while comparing the outcomes an statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.002). A weaning time reduction of 50.7% was observed with SmartCare® protocol while compared to Support Pressure and 53% reduction while comparing to T piece.
Conclusion: Automated weaning protocol SmartCare® is more effective than nonautomated protocols Support Pressure and T Piece in mechanical ventilation withdrawal.


REFERENCES

  1. Esteban A, Alía I, Ibanez J, Benito S, Tobin MJ. Modes of mechanical ventilation and weaning. A national survey of Spanish hospitals. The Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. Chest. 1994;106:1188-1193.

  2. Esteban A, Ferguson ND, Meade MO, Frutos-Vivar F, Apezteguia C, Brochard L, et al. Evolution of mechanical ventilation in response to clinical research. Am J RespirCrit Care Med. 2008;177:170-177.

  3. Penuelas O, Frutos-Vivar F, Nin N, Esteban A, Gordo F, Albaiceta G y cols. ¿Ha cambiado la mortalidad de los pacientes con ventilación mecánica durante la última década? Resultados de 3 estudios internacionales prospectivos. Med Intensiva. 2011;35:79.

  4. Tobin M. The new irrationalism in weaning. J Bras Pneumol. 2011;37:571-573.

  5. Tobin M, Jubran A. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. In: Tobin MJ. Principles & practice of mechanical ventilation. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006:1185-1220.

  6. Boles J, Bion J, Connors A, Herridge M, Marsh B, Melot C, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. EurRespir J. 2007;29:1033-1056.

  7. Brochard L, Rauss A, Benito S, Conti G, Mancebo J, Rekik N, et al. Comparison of three methods of gradual withdrawal from ventilatory support during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J RespirCrit Care Med. 1994;150:896-903.

  8. Esteban A, Frutos F, Tobin MJ, Alía I, Solsona JF, Valverdú I, et al. A comparison of four methods of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:345-350.

  9. Tomlinson JR, Miller KS, Lorch DG, Smith L, Reines HD, Sahn SA. A prospective comparison of IMV and T-piece weaning from mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1989;96:348-352.

  10. Esen F, Denkel T, Telci L, Kesecioglu J, Tütüncü AS, Akpir K, et al. Comparison of pressure support ventilation (PSV) and intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) during weaning in patients with acute respiratory failure. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1992;317:371-376.

  11. Burns K, Lellouche F, Lessard M. Automating the weaning process with advanced closed loop systems. Intensive Care Med. 200;34:1757-1765.

  12. Lellouche F, Mancebo J, Brochard L. A multicenter, randomized trial of computer-driven protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J RespirCrit Care Med. 2006;174:894-900.

  13. Jaber S, Delay JM, Matecki S, Sebbane M, Eledjam JJ, Brochard L, Volume-guaranteed pressure-support ventilation facing acute changes in ventilatory demand. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1181-1188.

  14. Sottiaux TM. Patient-ventilator interactions during volume-support ventilation: asynchrony and tidal volume instability-a report of three cases. Respir Care. 2001;46:255-262.

  15. Branson RD. Dual control modes, closed loop ventilation, handguns and Tequila. Respiratory Care. 2001;46:232-233.

  16. Bouadma L, Lellouche F, Cabello B, Taille S, Mancebo J, Dojat M, et al. Computer driven management of prolonged mechanical ventilation and weaning: a pilot study. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1446-1450.

  17. Rose L, Schultz MJ, Carwell C, et al. Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD009235.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com