A 30-Minute Spontaneous Breathing Trial Misses Many Children Who Go On to Fail a 120-Minute Spontaneous Breathing Trial

Implementing the Pediatric Ventilator Liberation Guidelines Using the Most Current Evidence

Invasive mechanical ventilation is prevalent and associated with considerable morbidity. Pediatric critical care teams must identify the best timing and approach to liberating (extubating) children from this supportive care modality. Unsurprisingly, practice variation varies widely. As a first step to minimizing that variation, the first evidence-based pediatric ventilator liberation guidelines were published in 2023 and included 15 recommendations. Unfortunately, there is often a substantial delay before clinical guidelines reach widespread clinical practice. As such, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators using a systematic approach during implementation planning and design. In this narrative review, we will (1) summarize guideline recommendations, (2) discuss recent evidence and identify practice gaps relating to those recommendations, and (3) hypothesize about potential barriers and facilitators to their implementation in clinical practice.

Framework for Research Gaps in Pediatric Ventilator Liberation

BACKGROUND

The 2023 International Pediatric Ventilator Liberation Clinical Practice Guidelines provided evidence-based recommendations to guide pediatric critical care providers on how to perform daily aspects of ventilator liberation. However, because of the lack of high-quality pediatric studies, most recommendations were conditional based on very low to low certainty of evidence.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the research gaps related to pediatric ventilator liberation that can be studied to strengthen the evidence for future updates of the guidelines?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature in eight predefined Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) areas related to pediatric ventilator liberation to generate recommendations. Subgroups responsible for each PICO question subsequently identified major research gaps by synthesizing the literature. These gaps were presented at an international symposium at the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators meeting in spring 2022 for open discussion. Feedback was incorporated, and final evaluation of research gaps are summarized herein. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the highest level of evidence, the panel sought to highlight areas where alternative study designs also may be appropriate, given challenges with conducting large multicenter RCTs in children.

RESULTS

Significant research gaps were identified in six broad areas related to pediatric ventilator liberation. Several of these areas necessitate multicenter RCTs to provide definitive results, whereas other gaps can be addressed with multicenter observational studies or quality improvement initiatives. Furthermore, a need for some physiologic studies in several areas remains, particularly regarding newer diagnostic methods to improve identification of patients at high risk of extubation failure.

INTERPRETATION

Although pediatric ventilator liberation guidelines have been created, the certainty of evidence remains low and multiple research gaps exist that should be bridged through high-quality RCTs, multicenter observational studies, and quality improvement initiatives.

Pressure support versus continuous positive airway pressure for predicting successful liberation from invasive ventilation in children: an open label, randomized non-inferiority trial

Background

Pressure support (PS) as a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was considered inferior to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and T-piece because PS underestimated post-extubation work of breathing in physiologic studies. We aimed to compare PS and CPAP as SBT methods for assessing clinical outcomes in children.

Methods

This was an open label randomized non-inferiority trial conducted between December 2019 and August 2021 among children aged 1 month to 12 years deemed ready for weaning after at least 48 h of invasive ventilation in PICU. Children were randomized to undergo a 2-h SBT with PS of 8 cm H₂O in addition to PEEP 5-6 cm H₂O or CPAP (5-6 cm H₂O). The primary outcome was successful liberation from invasive ventilation for 72 h after first SBT. Secondary outcomes included first SBT pass rate, need for post-extubation respiratory support (high flow oxygen and/or non-invasive ventilation), and length of PICU stay.

Findings

Of the 247 enrolled children, 244 completed the trial (121 in PS and 123 in CPAP group). Median (IQR) age was 24 (9, 84) months. Median (IQR) duration of invasive ventilation before randomization was 4.5 (3, 6.5) days. Successful liberation from invasive ventilation after first SBT occurred in 97 (80.2%) children in PS and 93 (75.6%) children in CPAP group [difference 4.6; 95% CI (-5.8, 15); p = 0.39]. First SBT pass rate between PS and CPAP [111 (91.7%) versus 105 (85.4%); difference 6.3; 95% CI (-1.6, 14.3); p = 0.12] was similar. Need for post-extubation respiratory support [52 (43%) versus 49 (40%)], rate of reintubation within 72 h [14 (11.6%) versus 12 (9.8%)] and median (IQR) length of PICU stay [9 (6, 15) versus 8 (5.5, 13) days] were comparable. Four (1.6%) children, all in CPAP group had unfavourable outcome (1 died, 3 discontinued care).

Interpretation

In invasively ventilated children, 2-h SBT with pressure support was non-inferior to CPAP in predicting successful liberation from invasive ventilation.

Funding

None.

Pediatric Ventilator Liberation: One-Hour Versus Two-Hour Spontaneous Breathing Trials in a Single Center

BACKGROUND

The optimal spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) duration is not known for children who are critically ill. The study objective was to evaluate extubation outcomes between cohorts exposed to a 1- or 2-h SBT.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of a quality improvement project database in a 24-bed pediatric ICU. The intervention was a respiratory therapist-driven SBT clinical pathway across 2 improvement cycles by using a 2- or 1-h SBT. The primary outcomes were extubation failure and rescue noninvasive ventilation in the first 48 h. Secondary outcomes included SBT results and process measures.

RESULTS

There were 218 and 305 encounters in the 2- and 1-h cohorts, respectively. Extubation failure (7.3 vs 8.5%; P = .62) and rescue noninvasive ventilation rates (9.3 vs 8.2%; P = .68) were similar. In logistic regression models, SBT duration was not independently associated with either primary outcome. Extubation after 1-h SBT failure was associated with significantly higher odds of rescue noninvasive ventilation exposure (odds ratio 3.94, 95% CI 1.3-11.9; P = .02). SBT results were not associated with odds of extubation failure. There were 1,072 (2 h) and 1,333 (1 h) SBTs performed. The 1-h SBT pass rate was significantly higher versus the 2-h SBT (71.4 vs 51.1%; P < .001). Among all failed SBTs, the top 3 reported failure modes were tidal volume ≤ 5 mL/kg (23.6%), breathing frequency increase > 30% (21%), and oxygen saturation < 92% (17.3%). When considering all failed SBTs, 75.5% of failures occurred before 45 min.

CONCLUSIONS

A 1-h SBT may be a viable alternative to a 2-h version for the average child who is critically ill. Further, a 1-h SBT may better balance extubation outcomes and duration of invasive ventilation for the general pediatric ICU population.