Effects of the First Spontaneous Breathing Trial in Children With Tracheostomy and Long-Term Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Weaning and liberation from mechanical ventilation in pediatric patients with tracheostomy and long-term mechanical ventilation constitute a challenging process due to diagnosis heterogeneity and significant variability in the clinical condition. We aimed to evaluate the physiological response during the first attempt of a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and to compare variables in subjects who failed or passed the SBT. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in tracheostomized children with long-term mechanical ventilation admitted to the Hospital Josefina Martinez, Santiago, Chile, between 2014-2020. Cardiorespiratory variables such as breathing pattern, use of accessory respiratory muscles, heart rate, breathing frequency, and oxygen saturation were registered at baseline and throughout a 2-h SBT with or without positive pressure depending on an SBT protocol. Comparison of demographic and ventilatory variables between groups (SBT failure and success) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 48 subjects were analyzed (median [IQR] age of 20.5 [17.0-35.0] months, 60% male). Chronic lung disease was the primary diagnosis in 60% of subjects. Eleven (23%) total subjects failed the SBT (< 2 h), with an average failure time of 69 ± 29 min. Subjects who failed the SBT had a significantly higher breathing frequency, heart rate, and end-tidal CO2 than subjects who succeeded (P < .001). In addition, subjects who failed the SBT had significantly shorter duration of mechanical ventilation before the SBT, higher proportion unassisted SBT, and higher rate of deviation SBT protocol in comparison with subjects who succeeded. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting an SBT to evaluate the tolerance and cardiorespiratory response in tracheostomized children with long-term mechanical ventilation is feasible. Time on mechanical ventilation before the first attempt and type of SBT (with or without positive pressure) could be associated with SBT failure.

Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapy: A Rapid Overview.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy. METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. In addition, the records in PROSPERO and Epistemonikos and PEDro were consulted. Systematic reviews of different conditions, populations, and contexts-where the intervention to be evaluated is telerehabilitation by physical therapy-were included. The outcomes were clinical effectiveness depending on specific condition, functionality, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence, and safety. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by a reviewer with non-independent verification by a second reviewer. The findings are reported qualitatively in the tables and figures. RESULTS: Fifty-three systematic reviews were included, of which 17 were assessed as having low risk of bias. Fifteen reviews were on cardiorespiratory rehabilitation, 14 on musculoskeletal conditions, and 13 on neurorehabilitation. The other 11 reviews addressed other types of conditions and rehabilitation. Thirteen reviews evaluated with low risk of bias showed results in favor of telerehabilitation versus in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation, while 17 reported no differences between the groups. Thirty-five reviews with unclear or high risk of bias showed mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the contradictory results, telerehabilitation in physical therapy could be comparable with in-person rehabilitation or better than no rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low-back pain, hip and knee replacement, and multiple sclerosis and also in the context of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. It is imperative to conduct better quality clinical trials and systematic reviews. IMPACT: Providing the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore yield better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.