1. Safety of Positive Pressure Extubation Technique
- Author
-
Daniela Castro, Gisela Montero, Gimena Paola Cardoso, Paula C Dib, María F De Benedetto, Silvina Lorena Garcia Schustereder, María Constanza Pita, Victoria L Di Giorgio, Silvina Borello, Julieta Delli Carpini, Matías Nicolás Bertozzi, María Eugenia Dotta, Carla Candela Brovia, Marco Bezzi, Patricio Aguirre, Federico Villalba, Mauro F Andreu, María Paula Pedace, Juan Manuel Carballo, Mercedes Martín, and Alejandra M Galloli
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Positive pressure ,Airway Extubation ,Suction ,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine ,Positive-Pressure Respiration ,03 medical and health sciences ,Postoperative Complications ,0302 clinical medicine ,Statistical significance ,Intubation, Intratracheal ,medicine ,Humans ,Aged ,Mechanical ventilation ,business.industry ,Incidence ,Incidence (epidemiology) ,Absolute risk reduction ,Pneumonia ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,Intention to Treat Analysis ,Treatment Outcome ,030228 respiratory system ,Anesthesia ,Cuff ,Arterial blood ,Female ,business ,Ventilator Weaning - Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laboratory studies suggest applying positive pressure without endotracheal suction during cuff deflation and extubation. Although some studies reported better physiological outcomes (e.g. arterial blood gases) with this technique, the safety of positive pressure extubation technique has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to determine the safety of the positive-pressure extubation technique compared with the traditional extubation technique in terms of incidence of complications. METHODS: Adult subjects who were critically ill and on invasive mechanical ventilation who met extubation criteria were included. The subjects were randomly assigned to positive-pressure extubation (n = 120) or to traditional extubation (n = 120). Sequential tests for noninferiority and, when appropriate, for superiority were performed. Positive pressure was considered noninferior if the upper limit of the CI for the absolute risk difference did not exceed a threshold of 15% in favor of the traditional group, both in per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses. A P value of RESULTS: A total of 236 subjects were included in the primary analysis (per protocol) (119 in the positive-pressure group and 117 in the traditional group). The incidence of overall major and minor complications, pneumonia, extubation failure, and reintubation was lower in the positive-pressure group than in the traditional group, with statistical significance for noninferiority both in the per protocol (P CONCLUSIONS: Positive pressure was safe and noninferior to traditional extubation methods. Furthermore, positive pressure has shown to be superior in terms of a lower incidence of major complications. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03174509.)
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF