Association between spontaneous breathing trial methods and reintubation in adult critically ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ippolito, Mariachiara

Co-prime

;Sardo, Salvatore

Co-prime

Writing - Original Draft Preparation

;Tripodi, Vincenzo Francesco;Latronico, Nicola;Bignami, Elena;Giarratano, Antonino;Cortegiani, Andrea

2024-01-01

---

Abstract

Background: Reintubation is associated with higher risk of mortality. There is no clear evidence on the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) method to reduce the risk of reintubation. Research question: Are different methods of conducting SBT in critically ill patients associated with different risk of reintubation compared to T-tube? Study design and methods: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of different SBT methods on reintubation. We surveyed PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases from inception to 26th January 2024. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to determine the likelihood that an intervention was ranked as the best. Pairwise comparisons were also investigated by frequentist meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 22 RCTs were included, for a total of 6196 patients. The network included nine nodes, with 13 direct pairwise comparisons. About 71% of the patients were allocated to T-tube and PSV-ZEEP, with 2135 and 2101 patients, respectively. The only intervention with a significantly lower risk of reintubation compared to T-tube was high flow oxygen (HFO) (RR 0.23, CrI 0.09 to 0.51, moderate quality evidence). HFO was associated with the highest probability of being the best intervention for reducing the risk of reintubation (81.86%, SUCRA 96.42), followed by continuous positive airway pressure (11.8%, SUCRA 76.75). Interpretation: HFO SBT was associated with a lower risk of reintubation in comparison to other SBT methods. The results of our analysis should be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that investigated HFO SBT, and potential clinical heterogeneity related to co-interventions. Further trials should be performed to confirm the results on larger cohorts of patients and assess specific subgroups.