Additional file 1: of The use of standardized management protocols for critically ill patients with non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Data extraction form for eligible studies. (DOCX 46 kb

Spontaneous breathing trial techniques for extubating adults and children who are critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance: Considerable controversy exists regarding the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique to use. Objective: To summarize trials comparing alternative SBTs. Data sources: Several databases (MEDLINE [from inception to February 2023], the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [in February 2023], and Embase [from inception to February 2023] and 5 conference proceedings (from January 1990 to April 2023) were searched in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Study selection: Randomized trials directly comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults or children and reporting at least 1 clinical outcome were selected. Data extraction and synthesis: Paired reviewers independently screened citations, abstracted data, and assessed quality for the systematic review and meta-analysis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA guidelines). Data were pooled using random-effects models. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes included SBT success, extubation success, and reintubation. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis identified 40 trials that included 6716 patients. Low-quality evidence (14 trials [n = 4459]) suggested that patients were not more likely to pass a pressure support (PS) compared with a T-piece SBT (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.11; P = .31; I2 = 73%), unless 1 outlier trial accounting for all heterogeneity was excluded (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; P Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the findings suggest that patients undergoing PS compared with T-piece SBTs were more likely to be extubated successfully and more likely to pass an SBT, after exclusion of an outlier trial. Pressure support SBTs were not associated with increased risk of reintubation. Future trials should compare SBT techniques that maximize differences in inspiratory support.</p

Spontaneous breathing trial techniques for extubating adults and children who are critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance: Considerable controversy exists regarding the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique to use. Objective: To summarize trials comparing alternative SBTs. Data sources: Several databases (MEDLINE [from inception to February 2023], the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [in February 2023], and Embase [from inception to February 2023] and 5 conference proceedings (from January 1990 to April 2023) were searched in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Study selection: Randomized trials directly comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults or children and reporting at least 1 clinical outcome were selected. Data extraction and synthesis: Paired reviewers independently screened citations, abstracted data, and assessed quality for the systematic review and meta-analysis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA guidelines). Data were pooled using random-effects models. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes included SBT success, extubation success, and reintubation. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis identified 40 trials that included 6716 patients. Low-quality evidence (14 trials [n = 4459]) suggested that patients were not more likely to pass a pressure support (PS) compared with a T-piece SBT (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.11; P = .31; I2 = 73%), unless 1 outlier trial accounting for all heterogeneity was excluded (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; P Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the findings suggest that patients undergoing PS compared with T-piece SBTs were more likely to be extubated successfully and more likely to pass an SBT, after exclusion of an outlier trial. Pressure support SBTs were not associated with increased risk of reintubation. Future trials should compare SBT techniques that maximize differences in inspiratory support.</p

Comparative effectiveness of alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background: The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative SBT techniques. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2023 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults and children and reported initial SBT success, successful extubation, reintubation (primary outcomes) and mortality (ICU, hospital, most protracted; secondary outcome) rates. Two reviewers screened, reviewed full-texts, and abstracted data. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. Results: We included 40 RCTs (6716 patients). Pressure Support (PS) versus T-piece SBTs was the most common comparison. Initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS [risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05-1.11)], PS/automatic tube compensation (ATC) [1.12 (1.01 -1.25), high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) [1.07 (1.00-1.13) (all moderate certainty), and ATC [RR 1.11, (1.03-1.20); low certainty] SBTs compared to T-piece SBTs. Similarly, initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS, ATC, and PS/ATC SBTs compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) SBTs. Successful extubation rates were increased with PS [RR 1.06, (1.03-1.09); high certainty], ATC [RR 1.13, (1.05-1.21); moderate certainty], and HFNC [RR 1.06, (1.02-1.11); high certainty] SBTs, compared to T-piece SBTs. There was little to no difference in reintubation rates with PS (vs. T-piece) SBTs [RR 1.05, (0.91-1.21); low certainty], but increased reintubation rates with PS [RR 2.84, (1.61-5.03); moderate certainty] and ATC [RR 2.95 (1.57-5.56); moderate certainty] SBTs compared to HFNC SBTs. Conclusions: SBTs conducted with pressure augmentation (PS, ATC, PS/ATC) versus without (T-piece, CPAP) increased initial successful SBT and successful extubation rates. Although SBTs conducted with PS or ATC versus HFNC increased reintubation rates, this was not the case for PS versus T-piece SBTs.</div