Accuracy of respiratory muscle assessments to predict weaning outcomes: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several bedside assessments are used to evaluate respiratory muscle function and to predict weaning from mechanical ventilation in patients on the intensive care unit. It remains unclear which assessments perform best in predicting weaning success. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and compare the accuracy of the following assessments to predict weaning success: maximal inspiratory (PImax) and expiratory pressures, diaphragm thickening fraction and excursion (DTF and DE), end-expiratory (Tdiee) and end-inspiratory (Tdiei) diaphragm thickness, airway occlusion pressure (P0.1), electrical activity of respiratory muscles, and volitional and non-volitional assessments of transdiaphragmatic and airway opening pressures. METHODS: Medline (via Pubmed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were comprehensively searched from inception to 04/05/2023. Studies including adult mechanically ventilated patients reporting data on predictive accuracy were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate the SROC curves of each assessment method. Meta-regression was used to compare SROC curves. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding studies with high risk of bias, as assessed with QUADAS-2. Direct comparisons were performed using studies comparing each pair of assessments within the same sample of patients. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies were identified of which 88 studies (n = 6296) reporting on either PImax, DTF, DE, Tdiee, Tdiei and P0.1 were included in the meta-analyses. The sensitivity to predict weaning success was 63% (95% CI 47-77%) for PImax, 75% (95% CI 67-82%) for DE, 77% (95% CI 61-87%) for DTF, 74% (95% CI 40-93%) for P0.1, 69% (95% CI 13-97%) for Tdiei, 37% (95% CI 13-70%) for Tdiee, at fixed 80% specificity. Accuracy of DE and DTF to predict weaning success was significantly higher when compared to PImax (p = 0.04 and p < 0.01, respectively). Sensitivity and direct comparisons analyses showed that the accuracy of DTF to predict weaning success was significantly higher when compared to DE (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DTF and DE are superior to PImax and DTF seems to have the highest accuracy among all included respiratory muscle assessments for predicting weaning success. Further studies aiming at identifying the optimal threshold of DTF to predict weaning success are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209295, October 15, 2020.

Comparing two types of loading during inspiratory muscle training in patients with weaning difficulties: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Inspiratory muscle training improves respiratory muscle function and may improve weaning outcomes in patients with weaning difficulties. Compared to the commonly used pressure threshold loading, tapered flow resistive loading better accommodates pressure-volume relationships of the respiratory muscles, which might help to facilitate application of external loads and optimise training responses. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare acute breathing pattern responses and perceived symptoms during an inspiratory muscle training session performed against identical external loading provided as pressure threshold loading or as tapered flow resistive loading. We hypothesised that for a given loading, tapered flow resistive loading would allow larger volume expansion and higher inspiratory flow responses and consequently higher external work of breathing and power than pressure threshold loading and that subsequently patients perceived fewer symptoms during tapered flow resistive loading than during pressure threshold loading. METHODS: In this exploratory study, 21 patients (maximal inspiratory pressure: 35 ± 14 cmH2O and vital capacity:0.85 L±0.37 L) performed two training sessions against external loads equalling 42 ± 15% of maximal inspiratory pressure provided either as pressure threshold loading or as tapered flow resistive loading. During these training sessions, breath-by-breath data of breathing parameters were collected, and patients rated their perceived breathing effort, dyspnoea, and unpleasantness. RESULTS: Compared to pressure threshold loading, tapered flow resistive loading allowed significantly larger volume expansion (0.53 ± 0.28 L versus 0.41 ± 0.20 L, p < 0.01) and inspiratory flow responses (0.43 ± 0.20 L/s versus 0.33 ± 0.16 L/s, p = 0.01). Tapered flow resistive loading was perceived as less unpleasant (3.1 ± 1.9 versus 3.8 ± 2.4, p = 0.048). No significant differences in breathing effort, dyspnoea, work of breathing, and power were observed. CONCLUSIONS: For a given loading, inspiratory muscle training with tapered flow resistive loading allowed larger volume expansion and higher inspiratory flow responses than pressure threshold loading, which led patients to perceive tapered flow resistive loading as less unpleasant. This might help us to facilitate early implementation of inspiratory muscle training in patients with weaning difficulties. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03240263.