Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Feb 26;24(1):67.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2764-3.

Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yuting Li  1 , Hongxiang Li  1 , Dong Zhang  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of T-piece and pressure support ventilation as spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yuting Li et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to clarify the preferable SBT (T-piece or pressure support ventilation [PSV]).

Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to the 31st of July 2019. We included RCTs involving adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent at least two different SBT methods. All authors reported our primary outcome of successful extubation rate and clearly compared PS versus T-piece with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Ten RCTs including 3165 patients were included. The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the successful extubation rate between the T-piece group and PS group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; P = 0.27; I2 = 79%). In addition, compared with the PS group, the T-piece group showed no significant difference in the rate of reintubation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.26; P = 0.95; I2 = 5%), ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.83-1.80; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%), hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.99-1.87; P = 0.06; I2 = 19%), ICU length of stay (mean difference = - 0.10; 95% CI, - 0.59 to 0.39; P = 0.69; I2 = 13%), and hospital length of stay (mean difference = - 0.82;95% CI, - 2.2 to 0.55; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: T-piece and PSV as SBTs are considered to have comparable predictive power of successful extubation in critically ill patients. The analysis of secondary outcomes also shows no significant difference in the rate of reintubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU and hospital mortality between the two groups. Further randomized controlled studies of SBTs are still required.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Pressure support ventilation; Randomized controlled trials; Spontaneous breathing trials; Systematic review; T-piece.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of literature selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot for successful extubation rate
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Funnel plot for successful extubation rate
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot for rate of reintubation
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Forest plot for ICU mortality
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Forest plot for hospital mortality
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Forest plot for ICU length of stay
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Forest plot for hospital length of stay
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Perren A, Brochard L. Managing the apparent and hidden difficulties of weaning from mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(11):1885–1895. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-3014-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deab SA, Bellani G. Extubation failure after successful spontaneous breathing trial: prediction is still a challenge! Respir Care. 2014;59(2):301–302. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03037. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sklar MC, Burns K, Rittayamai N, Lanys A, Rauseo M, Chen L, Dres M, Chen GQ, Goligher EC, Adhikari NKJ, Brochard, et al. Effort to breathe with various spontaneous breathing trial techniques. A physiologic meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(11):1477–1485. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201607-1338OC. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alía I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, Benito S, Epstein SK, Apezteguía C, Nightingale P, et al. Mechanical Ventilation International Study Group. Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA. 2002;287(3):345–355. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.3.345. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peñuelas O, Frutos-Vivar F, Fernández C, Anzueto A, Epstein SK, Apezteguía C, González M, Nin N, Raymondos K, Tomicic V, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of ventilated patients according to time to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(4):430–437. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201011-1887OC. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types