Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of alternative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) techniques on extubation success and other clinically important outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Ovid Health Star, proceedings of five conferences (1990-2016), and reference lists for randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in intubated adults or children. Primary outcomes were initial SBT success, extubation success, or reintubation. Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. RESULTS: We identified 31 trials (n = 3541 patients). Moderate-quality evidence showed that patients undergoing pressure support (PS) compared with T-piece SBTs (nine trials, n = 1901) were as likely to pass an initial SBT (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.11; I 2 = 77%) but more likely to be ultimately extubated successfully (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10; 11 trials, n = 1904; I 2 = 0%). Exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results for SBT and extubation outcomes suggested that PS (vs T-piece) SBTs also improved initial SBT success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12; I 2 = 0%). Limited data suggest that automatic tube compensation plus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs CPAP alone or PS increase SBT but not extubation success. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing PS (vs T-piece) SBTs appear to be 6% (95% CI 2-10%) more likely to be extubated successfully and, if the results of an outlier trial are excluded, 6% (95% CI 1-12%) more likely to pass an SBT. Future trials should investigate patients for whom SBT and extubation outcomes are uncertain and compare techniques that maximize differences in support.

Systolic blood pressure measurements are unreliable for the management of acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.

PURPOSE: Whether systolic blood pressure (SBP) is reliable in acute spontaneous intracerebral (sICH) by assessing agreement between simultaneous BP measurements obtained from cuff non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and radial arterial invasive blood pressure (AIBP) devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Among 766 prospectively screened sICH subjects, 303 (39.5%) had NIBP and AIBP measurements. During the first 24 h, 2157 simultaneous paired measurement readings were abstracted. Paired NIBP/AIBP measurements were included in a Bland-Altman technique with 95% agreement limits and coefficients from regression analysis derived from a bootstrap procedure. RESULTS: Variance for SBP was 66.1 mmHg, which was larger than the 44.3 mg Hg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) or the 46.1 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP). Pairwise comparison of mean biases showed a significant difference between SBP when compared to DBP (p < 0.0001) or MAP (p < 0.0001). The mean bias between DBP and MAP was not different (p = 0.68). Regression-based Bland Altman analysis found significant bias (slope -0.16, 95% CI -0.23, -0.09, p < 0.05) over the range of mean SBP. Bias over the range of mean DBP or MAP was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that SBP is an unreliable blood pressure measurement in patients with sICH.