Published 21 May 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1574
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1574

Research

Use of non-invasive ventilation to wean critically ill adults off invasive ventilation: meta-analysis and systematic review

¹ Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 1W8, ² Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada, ³ Divisions of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, ⁴ Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada, ⁵ Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, ⁶ Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto,d ON, ⁷ Department of Critical Care, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, BC, ⁸ Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vancouver, BC, ⁹ Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON

Abstract

Objective To summarise the evidence for early extubation with immediate application of non-invasive ventilation compared with continued invasive weaning on important outcomes in intubated adults with respiratory failure.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials.

Setting Intensive care units.

Participants Critically ill adults receiving invasive ventilation.

Study selection criteria We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL, proceedings from four conferences, and reference lists of relevant studies to identify relevant trials. Two reviewers independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data.

Results We identified 12 trials enrolling 530 participants, mostly with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Compared with invasive weaning, non-invasive weaning was significantly associated with reduced mortality (relative risk 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.79), ventilator associated pneumonia (0.29, 95% 0.19 to 0.45), length of stay in intensive care unit (weighted mean difference –6.27 days, –8.77 to –3.78) and hospital (–7.19 days, –10.80 to –3.58), total duration of ventilation, and duration of invasive ventilation. Non-invasive weaning had no effect on weaning failures or weaning time. Benefits on mortality and weaning failures were non-significantly greater in trials that exclusively enrolled patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease versus mixed populations.

Conclusions Current trials in critically ill adults show a consistent positive effect of non-invasive weaning on mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia, though the net clinical benefits remain to be fully elucidated. Non-invasive ventilation should preferentially be used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a highly monitored environment.

Introduction

Patients with respiratory failure often require mechanical ventilation to unload the respiratory muscles and support gas exchange until the pathophysiology leading to respiratory failure improves. Invasive ventilation maintains a patent airway but when used over a prolonged period of time might lead to ventilator associated pneumonia.¹ This, in turn, is associated with increased morbidity and trends towards increased mortality.² For these reasons, clinicians caring for patients who need invasive ventilation strive to reduce the duration of invasive ventilation while optimising the chance for successful extubation.³

Non-invasive ventilation provides an alternative method of supporting a patient’s respiration by using positive pressure ventilation with either an oronasal, nasal, or total face mask at the patient-ventilator interface. Non-invasive ventilation preserves the patient’s ability to speak and cough⁴ and has been shown to reduce complications related to intubation, especially ventilator associated pneumonia.^{5 6} Similar to invasive ventilation, non-invasive ventilation can reduce the frequency of breathing, augment tidal volume, improve gas exchange, and rest the muscles of respiration.^{7 8} Non-invasive ventilation has been widely investigated as an initial treatment to prevent intubation and intubation related complications and improve clinical outcomes in selected patients.^{9 10} Many patients with severe respiratory failure, impaired sensorium, haemodynamic instability, or difficulty clearing secretions, however, undergo direct intubation or intubation after a failed attempt at non-invasive ventilation.

To mitigate the effect of complications associated with protracted invasive ventilation, investigators have explored the role of non-invasive ventilation in weaning patients from invasive ventilation. Non-invasive weaning involves extubating patients directly to non-invasive ventilation for the purpose of weaning to reduce the duration of invasive ventilation and, consequently, complications related to intubation. Since Udwadia and colleagues published the first report describing use of non-invasive ventilation to facilitate liberation of patients with weaning failure from invasive ventilation in 1992,¹¹ several uncontrolled, prospective studies,^{12 13 14 15} early randomised controlled trials,^w1-w5 and an early meta-analysis¹⁶ have examined its use to facilitate weaning. That meta-analysis showed significant benefit of the non-invasive approach on length of stay in hospital and the total duration of ventilation. Non-invasive weaning also reduced mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia compared with invasive weaning, however there were few events.

In light of new evidence we critically appraised, summarised, and updated current work on the effect of non-invasive weaning compared with invasive weaning on the primary outcome of mortality and secondary outcomes including ventilator associated pneumonia, length of stay in intensive care and in hospital, and duration of ventilator support in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults.

Methods

Data sources and searches
We updated a previously conducted search of Medline (January 1966-April 2008), Embase (January 1980-April 2008), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008) without language restrictions. Details of the search strategy and terms are available from the authors. Two reviewers (KEAB, NKJA) screened citation titles and abstracts independently. All potentially eligible studies were retrieved in full and translated into English, as required. One reviewer (SPK) updated manual searches of abstracts from intensive care conference proceedings published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, and Chest from January 2003 to April 2008. We reviewed bibliographies of all retrieved articles to identify potentially relevant trials and contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished studies and obtain additional information regarding study methods, where needed.

Study selection
We included randomised trials that enrolled adults with respiratory failure who required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours. The trials examined extubation with immediate application of non-invasive ventilation compared with continued invasive weaning. We included trials reporting at least one of mortality (primary outcome), ventilator associated pneumonia, weaning failure (using authors’ definitions), length of stay in intensive care or hospital, total duration of ventilation (invasive and non-invasive), duration of ventilation related to weaning (after randomisation), duration of invasive ventilation, adverse events, or quality of life. We also included quasi-randomised controlled trials—for example, those that allocated patients by hospital registry number or day of the week. We excluded studies that compared non-invasive with invasive weaning in the immediate postoperative setting, compared non-invasive ventilation with unassisted oxygen supplementation, and investigated use of non-invasive ventilation after unplanned extubation. Two authors (KEAB, NKJA) independently selected articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

Data extraction and quality assessment
Two authors (KEAB, NKJA), not blinded to the source of the reports, used a standardised data abstraction form to independently abstract data regarding study methods (randomisation, allocation concealment, cointerventions, blinded outcome assessment, completeness of follow-up, and adherence to the intention to treat principle). Additionally, we assessed features unique to the design and implementation of weaning trials, including use of daily screening to identify weaning candidates, criteria to identify weaning readiness, explicit weaning protocols (both groups), criteria for discontinuing mechanical ventilation (both groups), and reintubation. Disagreements regarding study selection and data abstraction were resolved by consensus and arbitration with a third author (SPK or MM).

Data synthesis and statistical analysis
When there were no compelling differences in study populations, interventions, and outcomes we pooled data across studies using random effects models.¹⁷ We derived summary estimates of relative risk and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively, using Review Manager 4.2.10 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford). If an outcome was reported at two different time points, we included the more protracted measure in pooled analyses.

We determined the presence and impact of statistical heterogeneity among studies using the Cochran Q statistic¹⁸ (threshold P<0.10)¹⁹ and the I² test^{20 21} (with threshold values of 0-40%, 30-60%, 50-90%, and 75% representing heterogeneity that might not be important or might represent moderate, substantial, or considerable heterogeneity, respectively).²² In sensitivity analyses, we assessed the impact of excluding quasi-randomised trials on mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. We planned subgroup analyses to compare the effects of non-invasive weaning on mortality and weaning failures in exclusively chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared with non-chronic populations and on mortality in studies that enrolled 50% versus <50% patients with COPD. We used random effects models for sensitivity and subgroup analyses and assessed for differences between subgroups in summary estimates using a z test for interaction.

We assessed for publication bias in mortality by visually inspecting the corresponding forest plot. Post hoc, we conducted additional pooled analyses of mortality at various time points to assess the robustness of the results.

Results

Trial identification
We identified 12 randomised trials,^w1-w12 including one quasi-randomised trial,^w4 that met our inclusion criteria. Of these, five^w1-w5 were included in a previous systematic review and meta-analysis.¹⁶ We excluded nine trials,^w13-w21 including three new trials^w19-w21 (fig 1). The seven newly identified trials included three publications in Chinese,^w7-w9 one abstract publication,^w6 two additional publications,^{w10 w11} and one unpublished dissertation^w12 (all in English). Of the previously identified trials, one was published in abstract form^w3 and one trial was published in Chinese.^w4 In total, eight trials evaluated exclusively patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease^{w1 w4 w6-w10 w12} and four included mixed patients.^{w2 w3 w5 w11} Patients were considered difficult to wean in one study^w2 and as persistent weaning failures in another study.^w5 Four studies^w7-w10 evaluated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with pulmonary infection (table 1). The two reviewers (KEAB, NKJA) achieved complete agreement on study selection.

View larger version (47K): [in this window] [in a new window] [PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]   Fig 1 Trial selection process

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1  Populations and interventions in studies of non-invasive ventilation in critically ill adults

 
Initial management
Initial pre-randomisation ventilation strategies predominantly entailed volume-cycled ventilation^{w1 w2 w4 w5 w6 w7 w9 w10 w12} with or without the concurrent or subsequent use of pressure support. In three trials, screening for weaning eligibility occurred daily^{w3 w5 w6} or daily after 48 hours of invasive ventilation.^w2 Alternatively, candidates for weaning were identified after at least 24 hours,^w12 36-48 hours (including 6-8 hours of paralysis),^w1 48 hours,^w2 48-60 hours,^w4 72 hours (including 6-8 hours of paralysis),^w6 or three days^w5 of invasive ventilation. Eligibility for study inclusion was based on meeting predefined criteria for readiness for weaning^{w1 w2 w4-w12} and failure of either a single 30 minute,^{w3 w11} one hour,^w1 or two hour^{w2 w6 w12} T-piece trial, or failure of two hour T-piece trials on three consecutive days.^w5

Four studies,^w7-w10 evaluating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with pulmonary infection, enrolled patients after control of infection was achieved^w7 or when they met pulmonary infection control criteria.^w8-w10 In most trials these criteria included an improving radiograph, improvement in temperature, improvement in white blood cell count (or percentage of neutrophils), and reduced volume and tenacity of secretions,^w7-w10 with improved haemodynamics, cough, and level of consciousness^{w7 w9} or reduced ventilator settings.^w10

Invasive weaning
Patients in the control groups were variably weaned with pressure support,^{w1-w6 w8 w12} assist control,^w5 or synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support.^{w7 w9 w10} The level of support was gradually decreased in two studies^{w1 w5} and trials of spontaneous breathing, using T-piece or continuous positive airway pressure of less than 5 cm H₂O, were performed twice daily^w1 or daily^{w5 w11} until extubation. One study included at least two observation periods per day during pressure support weaning with optional trials of spontaneous breathing.^w2 One study each titrated pressure support either by 2 cm H₂O every four hours according to clinical tolerance, saturations, and respiratory rate^w12 or by 2-4 cm H₂O per day.^w6 Patients were considered weaned when they remained stable for at least four hours with a synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation rate of 5 breaths/minute with pressure support of 5-7 cm H₂O^w10; blood gases were normalised, and patients could breathe spontaneously for more than three hours with low oxygen requirements (fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) 0.40), acceptable saturations (pulse oximetry saturation (SpO₂) 90%), and a normal pH (pH 7.35)^w7; or when pressure support was titrated to 8 cm H₂O ^w8 or 10 cm H₂O^{w9 w12} with positive end expiratory pressure of 5 cm H₂O,^w12 and satisfactory blood gases,^w12 saturations,^{w8 w9} respiratory rate,^{w8 w9 w12} tidal volume (about 8 ml/kg body weight),^{w8 w9} and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂, between 45 and 60 mm Hg or at baseline levels) on low FiO₂^{w8 w9 w12} for more than four hours.^{w8 w9} To discontinue invasive ventilation, patients successfully completed a spontaneous breathing trial of either two hours,^{w3 w5} three hours,^{w1 w4 w7} or unspecified duration,^w11 or two periods of observation with optional spontaneous breathing trials.^w2

Non-invasive weaning
Similar to invasive weaning, trials applied different protocols for non-invasive weaning. After extubation, in 11 studies non-invasive ventilation was administered in pressure mode,^{w1-w5 w7-w12} of which five specified a spontaneous timed mode^{w2 w3 w5 w9 w12} or flow mode.^w2 Another study used proportional assist ventilation in timed mode.^w6 Non-invasive ventilation was delivered by face mask^{w1-w3 w5 w6 w8-w12} or nasal mask.^{w2 w3 w5 w6 w8 w9} Initial support was delivered continuously in five studies,^{w1 w3-w5 w12} intermittently in one study,^w2 for at least two hours during the initial application in one study,^w9 or until tolerated for 20-22 hours a day (spaced by periods of spontaneous ventilation during meals and for expectoration) in one study.^w6 The level of support was gradually decreased and the duration on non-invasive ventilation gradually reduced.^{w8 w9} Some trials permitted fixed or gradually increasing periods of spontaneous breathing,^{w1 w6} with at least two^{w1 w6} specifying two periods of spontaneous breathing a day. In some studies, clinicians titrated pressure support by 2 cm H₂O every four hours^w12 or by 2-4 cm H₂O each day^w6 according to the patient’s tolerance. In some studies, clinicians decreased the level of inspiratory and expiratory positive airway pressure to 8 cm and 4 cm H₂O, respectively,^w12 while in others, inspiratory pressure was reduced to <10 cm H₂O (with non-invasive ventilation applied for less than two hours a day),^{w8 w9} or until the difference between inspiratory and expiratory pressure (the equivalent of pressure support) was <5 cm H₂O.^w10 Criteria for discontinuing non-invasive support included successful completion of a three^{w1 w4} or two^w3 hour period of spontaneous breathing or at least two periods of spontaneous breathing observed by an attending physician.^w2

Quality assessment
We contacted authors to confirm and supplement information related to study methods where needed; nine study authors responded.^{w1-w3 w5 w6 w9 w11 w12} Overall, the included studies were of moderate to high quality (table 2).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2  Quality assessment in studies of non-invasive ventilation in critically ill adults

 
Primary outcome: mortality
All 12 trials (530 patients) provided mortality data, reported at 30 days,^w12 60 days,^w1 90 days,^{w2 w5} at hospital discharge,^{w6 w9-w11} or at an undefined time.^{w3 w4 w7} There was strong evidence that non-invasive weaning was associated with reduced mortality (relative risk 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.79, P=0.001), with no heterogeneity (table 3, fig 2) .

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window] [PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]   Fig 2 Effect of non-invasive and invasive weaning on mortality in critically ill adults on invasive ventilation

 
Secondary outcomes
Pooled data from 11 studies (509 patients)^{w1 w2 w4-w12} showed that non-invasive weaning was associated with decreased ventilator associated pneumonia (relative risk 0.29, 0.19 to 0.45, P<0.001), with no heterogeneity (fig 3). Nine studies provided diagnostic criteria for ventilator associated pneumonia.^{w1 w4 w5 w7-w12} Meta-analyses also showed that patients undergoing non-invasive weaning had clinically and statistically reduced length of stay in intensive care (6.3 days) and hospital (7.2 days), total duration of mechanical ventilation (5.6 days), and duration of invasive ventilation (7.8 days), with significant heterogeneity. Non-invasive weaning had no effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation related to weaning or weaning failures, and no study reported on quality of life.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window] [PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]   Fig 3 Effect of alternative weaning strategies on ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill adults on invasive ventilation

 
Adverse events
Notwithstanding few events and wide confidence intervals, the pooled results showed no difference in arrhythmias (two studies, 63 patients) or reintubation (six studies, 328 patients), and significantly fewer tracheostomies (three studies, 141 patients) with non-invasive weaning (table 3).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3  Summary estimates of effect of non-invasive ventilation in critically ill adults

 
Sensitivity and subgroup analyses
Exclusion of a quasi-randomised trial^w4 maintained the significant reductions in mortality (relative risk 0.56, 0.39 to 0.81, P=0.002) and ventilator associated pneumonia (0.30, 0.20 to 0.47, P<0.001) in favour of non-invasive weaning. We noted a non-significant beneficial effect (z=–1.332; P=0.18) of non-invasive weaning in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (eight studies) compared with mixed populations (four studies) (0.42, 0.25 to 0.69, and 0.72, 0.39 to 1.32). When we conducted a subgroup analysis evaluating studies enrolling 50% (10 studies) versus <50% (two studies) patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, we found a significant benefit of non-invasive weaning on mortality in favour of studies enrolling predominantly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.43, 0.28 to 0.65, and 1.15, 0.56 to 2.37; z=–2.308; P=0.02). Similarly, we noted a non-significant but greater effect of non-invasive weaning on weaning failures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (two studies) compared with mixed populations (two studies) (0.50, 0.22 to 1.12, and 1.28, 0.45 to 3.60, (z=–1.395; P=0.16).

Publication bias
Visual inspection of a funnel plot comparing the study estimates of effect (relative risk) with the standard error of the log relative risk of mortality showed asymmetry and suggested the absence of studies with non-significant results. The absence of such trials might overinflate the overall summary estimate of effect.²²

Discussion

In critically ills adults in intensive care non-invasive weaning is associated with decreased mortality, ventilator associated pneumonia, length of stay in intensive care and hospital, total duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of invasive ventilation. None of the 12 trials in our review reported quality of life outcomes.

In their efforts to optimise the timing of liberation from invasive ventilation, clinicians are challenged by a trade-off between the risks associated with failed extubation and the complications associated with prolonged invasive ventilation.²³ Non-invasive weaning, by providing ventilatory support without an artificial airway, offers a potential solution to this trade-off. Clinicians might be reluctant to adopt the non-invasive approach to weaning, however, because of the need to surrender a protected airway, concerns regarding the ventilatory support that can be provided with non-invasive ventilation, and the increased risk of ventilator associated pneumonia if reintubation is required.²⁴ Moreover, the optimal timing for transitioning patients to non-invasive ventilation for weaning remains to be determined.

Most studies in our review included patients with predominantly^{w2 w5} or exclusively^{w1 w4 w6-w10 w12} chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease might be ideally suited to non-invasive ventilation given its ability to offset respiratory muscle fatigue and tachypnoea, augment tidal volume, and reduce intrinsic positive end expiratory pressure.^{9 25} Subgroup analyses suggested greater benefits of non-invasive weaning in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, although results of analyses of subgroup effects were predominantly non-significant. Inferences from the subgroup analyses are limited by contamination of mixed populations with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the small number of studies evaluating non-invasive weaning in patients with other causes of respiratory failure, and are probably underpowered to detect significant interactions. Whether other causes of respiratory failure are as amenable to non-invasive weaning remains to be determined.

We found that non-invasive weaning significantly reduced mortality and length of stay in intensive care and hospital consistent with (and possibly due to) the observed reduction in ventilator associated pneumonia. Direct access to respiratory secretions among invasively weaned patients, however, might have enhanced detection of ventilator associated pneumonia in this group. Moreover, in the control groups mortality (range 11.1%^{w3 w6} to 60.0%^w12) and rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (range 6.3%^w2 to 59.1%^w5) varied among the included trials. The small number of events in the included studies,²⁶ the variability in event rates in control groups, and the absence of a single adequately powered randomised controlled trial directly comparing the alternative weaning strategies limits the strength of our inferences.

While surviving admission to hospital is undoubtedly an important outcome for patients and healthcare providers, it can be influenced by many factors resulting in highly variable lengths of stay. Patients might remain in hospital at arbitrary time points (such as 60 days) because of factors related and unrelated to the initial illness that precipitated admission. This might not only influence the distribution of events between two treatment arms but might also underestimate mortality (biasing towards a mortality benefit). Conversely, extended follow-up might be influenced by additional deaths unrelated to the treatment of interest (biasing against a mortality benefit). To examine the potential influence of measuring mortality at various time points, we pooled study estimates of mortality using random effects models in three categories: mortality or time in intensive care not specified (six trials) (relative risk 0.63, 0.32 to 1.25, P=0.18); hospital, inpatient, or 30 day mortality (seven trials) (0.56, 0.31 to 1.01, P=0.05); and 60-90 day mortality (three trials) (0.42, 0.21 to 0.80, P=0.009). While underpowered to detect differences (with fewer events and trials at each time point), the pooled results support a qualitatively similar direction of treatment effect in favour of non-invasive weaning.

The included studies varied in the methods used to identify candidates for weaning and to titrate and discontinue mechanical support. Multidisciplinary protocols to identify candidates for weaning and for the conduct of daily trials of spontaneous breathing reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation.^{27 28 29 30 31 32 33} In our meta-analysis, while only three trials screened daily for readiness for trials of spontaneous breathing, four additional trials conducted pre-randomisation trials of spontaneous breathing, and four trials assessed for resolution of pulmonary infection to identify weaning readiness. The latter strategy prioritises resolution of the cause of respiratory failure (bronchopulmonary infection) over meeting conventional weaning criteria and represents a novel approach to identifying candidates for weaning in selected populations. In trials that did not include a trial of spontaneous breathing after randomisation, however, some invasively ventilated patients might have been ventilated longer than necessary. While methods for identifying candidates for weaning might affect study estimates of the duration of ventilation, they represent pre-randomisation study design considerations and are less likely to result in important performance bias. Conversely, unequal or inconsistent use of weaning protocols and the frequency with which periods of spontaneous breathing (non-invasive strategy) or trials of spontaneous breathing (invasive strategy) were permitted represent important post-randomisation study design considerations that could bias estimates of the duration of ventilation in unblinded weaning trials. Opportunities for comparable reductions in mechanical support were provided by using weaning protocols or guidelines in both treatment groups in seven trials with variable use of periods of spontaneous breathing (or trials of spontaneous breathing) among the included studies. Whereas 11 trials reported use of criteria to discontinue mechanical ventilation in both groups, only six reported explicit reintubation criteria after a failed attempt at extubation. While recent literature supports that administration of sedation is an important consideration in study design, with the potential to affect length of ventilation,³⁴ only one study in our review used a sedation protocol.^w3 Overall, most trials included measures to reduce bias after randomisation and were of moderate to high quality, though variation among trials in adopting these measures limits interpretation of some of the pooled results.

This review was strengthened by an extensive search for relevant trials. We conducted duplicate independent citation screening and data abstraction and corresponded with lead investigators to clarify study methods where needed. In addition to appraising the quality of randomised trials, we also assessed methodological features specific to weaning trials that might influence estimates of treatment effect. We used random effects models in pooling data, which take into consideration variation both between and within studies. Pooling results in a meta-analysis implicitly assumes that the studies are sufficiently similar with respect to their populations, study interventions, outcomes, and methodological quality that one could reasonably expect a comparable underlying treatment effect. A priori, we planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses to explain the differences among study results and anticipating heterogeneity in pooling across studies for selected outcomes.

Conclusion
Current trials of non-invasive weaning, while limited by inclusion of small numbers of patients mostly with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, consistently show positive effects on mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. The evidence of benefit is promising, but additional trials are required to fully evaluate the net clinical benefits on clinical outcomes associated with non-invasive weaning, especially the risks associated with extubation and the impact of reintubation after a failed attempt at extubation on clinical outcomes. If consideration is being given to weaning patients with non-invasive ventilation, we suggest that it be preferentially used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and applied in a highly monitored environment. A well designed, adequately powered randomised controlled with explicitly defined end points comparing the alternative approaches to weaning is justified.

What is already known on this topic Non-invasive ventilation has been widely investigated as an initial treatment to prevent intubation and intubation related complications Many patients with severe respiratory failure, impaired sensorium, haemodynamic instability, or difficulty clearing secretions undergo direct intubation or intubation after a failed attempt at non-invasive ventilation What this study adds Non-invasive weaning was associated with decreased mortality, ventilator associated pneumonia, length of stay in intensive care and hospital, total duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of invasive ventilation

Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1574

---

We thank Haibo Zhang, Haibo Qiu, Wei Ehr Cheng, and Zhuxian Feng for their assistance in contacting authors to clarify publication and study design issues.

Contributors: KEAB conducted the literature searches, screened abstracts, selected studies meeting inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed study quality, prepared initial and subsequent drafts of the manuscript, and integrated comments from other authors into revised versions of the manuscript. NKJA screened abstracts, selected studies meeting inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed study quality. SPK screened abstracts from conference proceedings, arranged for translation of foreign language publications, and adjudicated disagreements between reviewers. MM provided methodological guidance on drafting the manuscript and adjudicated disagreements between reviewers. All authors revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. KEAB is guarantor.

Funding: KEAB holds a clinician scientist award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Competing interests: SPK has received an unrestricted grant from Respironics Inc to support development of a non-invasive ventilation guideline for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.

Ethical approval: Not required.

References

1. Pingleton SK. Complications of acute respiratory failure. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:1463-9.[Web of Science][Medline]
2. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Griffith L, Keenan SP, Brun Buisson C. The attributable morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:1249-56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. MacIntyre NR, Cook DJ, Ely EW Jr, Epstein SK, Fink JB, Heffner JE, et al. Evidence based guidelines for weaning and discontinuing ventilatory support. A collective task force facilitated by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care and the College of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 2001;120(suppl 6):375-95S.[CrossRef]
4. Mehta S, Hill NS. Noninvasive ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:540-77.[Free Full Text]
5. Antonelli M, Conti G, Rocco M, Bufi M, DeBlasi RA, Vivino G, et al. A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 1998;339:429-35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Nourdine K, Combes P, Carton MJ, Beure Cannamea A, Ducreux JC. Does noninvasive ventilation reduce the ICU nosocomial infection risk? A prospective clinical survey. Intensive Care Med 1999;25:567-73.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Nava S, Ambrosino N, Rubini F, Fracchia C, Rampulla C, Torri G, et al. Effects of nasal pressure support ventilation and external PEEP on diaphragmatic activity in patients with severe stable COPD. Chest 1993;103:143-50.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8. Vittaca M, Ambrosino N, Clini E, Porta R, Rampulla C, Lanini B, et al. Physiological response to pressure support ventilation delivered before and after extubation in patients not capable of totally spontaneous autonomous breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:638-41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Keenan SP, Sinuff T, Cook DJ, Hill N. Which patient with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease benefit from noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation? A systematic review of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:861-70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Keenan SP, Sinuff T, Cook DJ, Hill NS. Does noninvasive positive pressure respiration improve outcome in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure? Crit Care Med 2004;32:2516-23.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
11. Udwadia ZF, Santis GK, Steven MH, Simonds AK. Nasal ventilation to facilitate weaning in patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency. Thorax 1992;47:715-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Goodenberger DM, Couser JI Jr, May JJ. Successful discontinuation of ventilation via tracheostomy by substitution of nasal positive pressure ventilation. Chest 1992;102:1277-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
13. Restrick LJ, Scott AD, Ward EM, French Ro, Cornwell WE, Wedjicha JA. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation in weaning intubated patients with chronic respiratory disease from assisted intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Respir Med 1993;87:199-204.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14. Gregoretti C, Beltrame F, Lucangelo U, Burbi L, Conti G, Turello M, et al. Physiologic evaluation of non-invasive pressure support ventilation in trauma patients with acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 1998;24:785-90.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
15. Kilger E, Briegel J, Haller M, Frey L, Schelling G, Stoll C, et al. Effects of noninvasive positive pressure ventilatory support in non-COPD patients with acute respiratory insufficiency after extubation. Intensive Care Med 1999;25:1374-80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
16. Burns KEA, Adhikari NKJ, Meade MO. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation as a weaning strategy for intubated adults with respiratory failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(4):CD004127.
17. Der Simonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. Cochran W. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101-29.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
19. Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sachs HS, Chalmers TC. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med 1989;8:141-51.[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-58.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
21. Higgins JP, Thomson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.[Free Full Text]
22. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1. Chichester: John Wiley, 2008.
23. Epstein SK, Ciabotaru RL, Wong JB. Effect of failed extubation on the outcome of mechanical ventilation. Chest 1997;112:186-92.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24. Pawar M, Mehta Y, Khurana P, Chaudhary A, Kulkarni V, Trehan N. Ventilator associated pneumonia: incidence, risk factors, outcome and microbiology. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003;17:22-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25. Nava S, Bruchi C, Rubini F, Palo A, Iotti G, Braschi A. Respiratory response and inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in COPD patients. Intensive Care Med 1995;21:871-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Devereaux PJ, Yusuf S, Yang H, Choi P, Guyatt GH. Are the recommendations to use perioperative beta-blocker therapy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery based on reliable evidence? CMAJ 2004;171:245-7.[Free Full Text]
27. Ely EW, Meade MO, Haponik EF, Kollef MH, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al. Mechanical ventilator weaning protocols driven by nonphysician health-care professionals: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2001;120(6 suppl):454-63S.[CrossRef]
28. Ely EW, Baker AM, Dunagan DP, Burke HL, Smith AC, Kelly PT, et al. Effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1864-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Kollef MH, Shapiro SD, Silver P, St John RE, Prentice D, Sauer S, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 1997;25:567-74.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
30. Marelich GP, Murin S, Battistella F, Inciardi J, Vierra T, Roby M. Protocol weaning of mechanical ventilation in medical and surgical patients by respiratory care practitioners and nurses: effect on weaning time and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2000;118:459-67.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
31. Esteban A, Alia I, Gordo F, Fernandez R, Solsona JF, Vallverdu I, et al. Extubation outcome after spontaneous breathing trials with T-tube or pressure support ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;156:459-65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Esteban A, Alia I, Tobin MJ. Effect of spontaneous breathing trial duration on outcome of attempts to discontinue mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:512-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Perren A, Domenighetti G, Mauri S, Genini F, Vizzardi N. Protocol-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation: clinical outcome in patients randomized for a 30-minute and 120-minute trial with pressure support. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:1058-63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
34. Brook AD, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, Prentice D, Sherman G, Shannon W, et al. Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 1999;27:2609-15.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

(Accepted 16 January 2009)

© Burns et al 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Weaning patients off invasive ventilation

Andrew Ferguson
BMJ 2009 338: b728. [Extract] [Full Text]

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson, Jonathan J Deeks, and Douglas G Altman
BMJ 2003 327: 557-560. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Ferguson, A. (2009). Weaning patients off invasive ventilation. BMJ 338: b728-b728 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Which way to wean?

David Pryor
bmj.com, 12 Jun 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>