Frequency of Screening for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation: Two Contemporaneous Proof-of-Principle Randomized Controlled Trials*. Issue 6 (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Burns, Karen E. A.; Wong, Jessica T. Y.; Dodek, Peter; Cook, Deborah J.; Lamontagne, Francois; Cohen, Ashley; Mehta, Sangeeta; Kho, Michelle E.; Hebert, Paul C.; Aslanian, Pierre; Friedrich, Jan O.; Brochard, Laurent; Rizvi, Leena; Hand, Lori; Meade, Maureen O.; Amaral, Andre C.; Seely, Andrew J.
• Is Part Of: Critical care medicine. Volume 47:Issue 6(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: critical care -- elderly -- randomized controlled trials -- screening -- weaning; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; Soins intensifs -- Périodiques; 616.028
• DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003722
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0090-3493

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: It is unknown whether more frequent screening of invasively ventilated patients, identifies patients earlier for a spontaneous breathing trial, and shortens the duration of ventilation. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a large trial to evaluate screening frequency in critically ill adults in the North American context. Design: We conducted two contemporaneous, multicenter, pilot, randomized controlled trials (the LibeRation from MEchanicaL VEntilAtion and ScrEening Frequency [RELEASE] and Screening Elderly PatieNts For InclusiOn in a Weaning [SENIOR] trials) to address concerns regarding the potential for higher enrollment, fewer adverse events, and better outcomes in younger patients. Setting: Ten and 11 ICUs in Canada, respectively. Patients: Parallel trials of younger (RELEASE < 65 yr) and older (SENIOR ≥ 65 yr) critically ill adults invasively ventilated for at least 24 hours. Interventions: Each trial compared once daily screening to "at least twice daily" screening led by respiratory therapists. Measurements and Main Results: In both trials, we evaluated recruitment (aim: 1–2 patients/month/ICU) and consent rates, reasons for trial exclusion, protocol adherence (target: ≥ 80%), crossovers (aim: ⩽ 10%), and the effect of the alternative screening frequencies on adverse events and clinical outcomes. We included 155 patients (53 patients [23 once daily, 30 at least twice daily] in RELEASE and 102 patients [54 once daily, 48 at least twice daily] in SENIOR). Between trials, we found similar recruitment rates (1.32 and 1.26 patients/month/ICU) and reasons for trial exclusion, high consent and protocol adherence rates (> 92%), infrequent crossovers, and few adverse events. Although underpowered, at least twice daily screening was associated with a nonsignificantly faster time to successful extubation and more successful extubations but significantly increased use of noninvasive ventilation in both trials combined. Conclusions: Similar recruitment and consent rates, few adverse events, and comparable outcomes in younger and older patients support conduct of a single large trial in North American ICUs assessing the net clinical benefits associated with more frequent screening. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.