Automatic adjustment of pressure support by a computer-driven knowledge-based system during noninvasive ventilation: a feasibility study

Automated weaning and SBT systems versus non-automated weaning strategies for weaning time in invasively ventilated critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Automated systems use closed-loop control to enable ventilators to perform basic and advanced functions while supporting respiration. SmartCare™ is a unique automated weaning system that measures selected respiratory variables, adapts ventilator output to individual patient needs by operationalizing predetermined algorithms and automatically conducts spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) when predetermined thresholds are met.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to compare weaning time (time from randomization to extubation as defined by study authors) between invasively ventilated critically ill adults weaned by automated weaning and SBT systems versus non-automated weaning strategies.As secondary objectives, we ascertained differences between effects of alternative weaning strategies on clinical outcomes (time to successful extubation, time to first SBT and first successful SBT, mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia, total duration of ventilation, lengths of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV), adverse events and clinician acceptance).The third objective of our review was to use subgroup analyses to explore variations in weaning time, length of ICU stay, mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia, use of NIV and reintubation according to (1) the type of clinician primarily involved in implementing the automated weaning and SBT strategy, (2) the ICU (as a reflection of the population involved) and (3) the non-automated (control) weaning strategy utilized.We conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate variations in weaning time based on (4) the methodological quality (low or unclear versus high risk of bias) of the included studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 5; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2013); EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 31 May 2013), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews and Ovid HealthSTAR (1999 to 31 May 2013), as well as conference proceedings and trial registration websites; we also contacted study authors and content experts to identify potentially eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing automated weaning and SBT systems versus non-automated weaning strategies in intubated adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted data according to prespecified criteria. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were planned to assess the impact on selected outcomes of the following: (1) the type of clinician primarily involved in implementing automated weaning and SBT systems, (2) the ICU (as a reflection of the population involved) and (3) the non-automated (control) weaning strategy utilized.

MAIN RESULTS

We pooled summary estimates from 10 trials evaluating SmartCare™ involving 654 participants. Overall, eight trials were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias, and two trials were judged to be at high risk of bias. Compared with non-automated strategies, SmartCare™ decreased weaning time (mean difference (MD) -2.68 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.99 to -1.37; P value < 0.0001, seven trials, 495 participants, moderate-quality evidence), time to successful extubation (MD -0.99 days, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.09; P value 0.03, seven trials, 516 participants, low-quality evidence), length of ICU stay (MD -5.70 days, 95% CI -10.54 to -0.85; P value 0.02, six trials, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and proportions of participants receiving ventilation for longer than seven and 21 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P value 0.01 and RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86; P value 0.02). SmartCare™ reduced the total duration of ventilation (MD -1.68 days, 95% CI -3.33 to -0.03; P value 0.05, seven trials, 521 participants, low-quality evidence) and the number of participants receiving ventilation for longer than 14 days (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.00; P value 0.05); however the estimated effects were imprecise. SmartCare™ had no effect on time to first successful SBT, mortality or adverse events, specifically reintubation. Subgroup analysis suggested that trials with protocolized (versus non-protocolized) control weaning strategies reported significantly shorter ICU stays. Sensitivity analysis excluded two trials with high risk of bias and supported a trend toward significant reductions in weaning time favouring SmartCare™.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with non-automated weaning strategies, weaning with SmartCare™ significantly decreased weaning time, time to successful extubation, ICU stay and proportions of patients receiving ventilation for longer than seven days and 21 days. It also showed a favourable trend toward fewer patients receiving ventilation for longer than 14 days; however the estimated effect was imprecise. Summary estimates from our review suggest that these benefits may be achieved without increasing the risk of adverse events, especially reintubation; however, the quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate, and evidence was derived from 10 small randomized controlled trials.

Monitoring Patient/Ventilator Interactions: Manufacturer's Perspective

The introduction of reduced and more powerful electronics has allowed the transition of medical equipment such as respiratory support devices from the hospital to the patient’s home environment. Even if this move could be beneficial for the patient, the clinician ends up in a delicate situation where little or no direct supervision is possible on the delivered treatment.

Progress in technologies led to an improved handling of patient-device interaction: manufacturers are promoting new or improved ventilation modes or cycling techniques for better patient-ventilator coupling. Even though these ventilation modes have become more responsive to patient efforts, adversely they might lead to events such as false triggering, autotriggering, delayed triggering.

In addition, manufacturers are developing tools to enhance the follow-up, remotely or offline, of the treatment by using embedded memory in the respiratory devices. This logging might be beneficial for the caregiver to review and document the treatment and tune the settings to the patient’s need and comfort. Also, remote telemedicine has been raised as a potential solution for many years without yet overall acceptance due to legal, technical and ethical problems.

Benefits of new technologies in respiratory support devices give the technical foundation for the transition from hospital to home and reducing patient/ventilator asynchronies. Healthcare infrastructure has to follow this trend in terms of cost savings versus hospital stays.