Search

Background: Reintubation is associated with higher risk of mortality. There is no clear evidence on the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) method to reduce the risk of reintubation., Research Question: Are different methods of conducting SBTs in critically ill patients associated with different risk of reintubation compared with T-tube?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of different SBT methods on reintubation. We surveyed PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to January 26, 2024. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to determine the likelihood that an intervention was ranked as the best. Pairwise comparisons were also investigated by frequentist meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach., Results: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials were included, for a total of 6,196 patients. The network included nine nodes, with 13 direct pairwise comparisons. About 71% of the patients were allocated to T-tube and pressure support ventilation without positive end-expiratory pressure, with 2,135 and 2,101 patients, respectively. The only intervention with a significantly lower risk of reintubation compared with T-tube was high-flow oxygen (HFO) (risk ratio, 0.23; 95% credibility interval, 0.09-0.51; moderate quality evidence). HFO was associated with the highest probability of being the best intervention for reducing the risk of reintubation (81.86%; SUCRA, 96.42), followed by CPAP (11.8%; SUCRA, 76.75)., Interpretation: In this study, HFO SBT was associated with a lower risk of reintubation compared with other SBT methods. The results of our analysis should be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that investigated HFO SBTs and potential clinical heterogeneity related to cointerventions. Further trials should be performed to confirm the results on larger cohorts of patients and to assess specific subgroups., Trial Registration: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42023449264; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures None declared., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques, strategies) shown by randomized trials to increase mortality in these clinical settings., Design: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process., Setting: A web-based international consensus conference., Participants: Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries., Interventions: The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines., Measurements and Main Results: The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed., Conclusion: The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The authors aimed to identify interventions documented by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reduce mortality in adult critically ill and perioperative patients, followed by a survey of clinicians' opinions and routine practices to understand the clinicians' response to such evidence. The authors performed a comprehensive literature review to identify all topics reported to reduce mortality in perioperative and critical care settings according to at least 2 RCTs or to a multicenter RCT or to a single-center RCT plus guidelines. The authors generated position statements that were voted on online by physicians worldwide for agreement, use, and willingness to include in international guidelines. From 262 RCT manuscripts reporting mortality differences in the perioperative and critically ill settings, the authors selected 27 drugs, techniques, and strategies (66 RCTs, most frequently published by the New England Journal of Medicine [13 papers], Lancet [7], and Journal of the American Medical Association [5]) with an agreement ≥67% from over 250 physicians (46 countries). Noninvasive ventilation was the intervention supported by the largest number of RCTs (n = 13). The concordance between agreement and use (a positive answer both to "do you agree" and "do you use") showed differences between Western and other countries and between anesthesiologists and intensive care unit physicians. The authors identified 27 clinical interventions with randomized evidence of survival benefit and strong clinician support in support of their potential life-saving properties in perioperative and critically ill patients with noninvasive ventilation having the highest level of support. However, clinician views appear affected by specialty and geographical location., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Corticosteroids have important effects on intermediate outcomes in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival is unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect on mortality of corticosteroids in critical and perioperative settings., Design: A meta-analysis of randomized trials., Setting: PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to February 1, 2018, for randomized trials comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care., Participants: Critically ill or surgical adult patients., Interventions: Corticosteroids compared with placebo or standard care., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 44,553 patients from 135 studies were included. Overall, mortality in the corticosteroid group and in the control group were similar (16% v 16%; p = 0.9). Subanalyses identified a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival in patients with respiratory system diseases (9% v 13%; p < 0.001) and bacterial meningitis (28% v 32%; p= 0.04), and a detrimental effect on survival in patients with traumatic brain injury (22% v 19%; p < 0.001). No differences in mortality were found in patients with cardiac diseases (7% v 6%; p = 0.7), in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (2.8% v 3.2% p = 0.14), and when treatment duration or patient age were considered., Conclusions: This meta-analysis documents the safety of corticosteroids in the overall critically ill population with the notable exception of brain injury patients, a setting where the authors confirmed their detrimental effect on survival. A possible beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival was found among patients with respiratory diseases and in patients with bacterial meningitis., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)