| Title |
Evaluation of a systematic approach to weaning of tracheotomized neurological patients: an early interrupted randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-015-0098-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosanna Vaschetto, Pamela Frigerio, Maurizio Sommariva, Arianna Boggero, Valentina Rondi, Francesca Grossi, Silvio Cavuto, Stefano Nava, Francesco Della Corte, Paolo Navalesi |
| Abstract |
While a systematic approach to weaning reduces the rate of extubation failure in intubated brain-injured patients, no data are available on the weaning outcome of these patients after tracheotomy. We aimed to assess whether a systematic approach to disconnect tracheotomized neurological and neurosurgical patients off the ventilator (intervention) is superior to the sole physician's judgment (control). Based on previous work in intubated patients, we hypothesized a reduction of the rate of failure within 48 h from 15 to 5 %. Secondary endpoints were duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay and mortality. We designed a single center randomized controlled study. Since no data are available on tracheotomized patients, we based our a priori power analysis on results derived from intubated patients and calculated an overall sample size of 280 patients. After inclusion of 168 consecutive patients, the trial was interrupted because the attending physicians judged the observed rate of reconnection to be much greater than expected. The overall rate of failure was 29 %, confirming the physicians' judgment. Twenty-one patients (24 %) in the intervention group and 27 (33 %) controls were reconnected to the ventilator within 48 h (p = 0.222). The main reasons for failure were respiratory distress (80 and 88 % in the treatment and control group, respectively), hemodynamic impairment (15 and 4 % in the treatment and control group, respectively), neurological deterioration (4 % in the control group only). The duration of mechanical ventilation was of 412 ± 202 h and 402 ± 189 h, in the control and intervention group, respectively. ICU length of stay was on average of 23 days for both groups. ICU mortality was 6 % in the control and 2 % in the intervention group without significant differences. We found no difference between the two groups under evaluation, with a rate of failure much higher than expected. Consequent to the early interruption, our study results to be underpowered. Based on the results of the present study, a further trial should overall enroll 790 patients. ACTRN12612000372886. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 6 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 25% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,054,237
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#939
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,723
of 393,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#20
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.