Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Ehab G Daoud
Respiratory Care September 2014, 59 (9) 1458-1459; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.03430
Ehab G Daoud
Division of Critical Care Medicine Kent Hospital Warwick, Rhode Island
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most common procedures performed daily in the ICU, yet remains one of the most complex, and is associated with many predicaments. This is usually a 2-step process of assessing readiness for liberation using a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) followed by removal of the artificial airway if the SBT is deemed successful and other criteria of extubation are met (eg, adequate cough, gag reflex, mental status, presence of secretions).1 Among those predicaments are: when to do an SBT, the best way of doing it, how to grade it, and why patients fail liberation despite passing the trial.2

Ample numbers of studies have been done over the last 3 decades trying to answer those questions, resulting in multiple criteria, complex indices, and newer ventilatory modes of weaning and protocols were developed that added to the weaning dilemma. This prompted multiple task forces of different concerned medical societies and organizations to attempt to organize and incorporate the research and to translate it into guidelines.3,4

Despite all these years of work and available body of evidence, we still find ourselves confined with a failure rate of liberation of ∼10–15%.1,4,5 This failure has led to increased mortality, prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital stays, and increased costs. On the other hand, failure to recognize patients who can be liberated can lead to prolonged mechanical ventilation, with its consequences of ventilator-induced lung injury, ventilator-associated pneumonia, tracheostomies, and cost burdens.3,4 Both kinds of failures could be traced to 2 factors. First are disease-related factors, and second are clinicians' imposed factors (eg, delay of recognition, inappropriate ventilatory mode settings, misinterpreting the results of an SBT).1

The success of an SBT is usually assessed through multiple subjective and objective parameters (Table 1)1,2; naming all parameters is beyond the scope of this editorial. Most of the weaning protocols available incorporate a mix of subjective and objective parameters to gauge the result of the trial.6,7 Of note, some of those objective parameters lack sensitivities and specificities, and their predictive value in predicting the success of an SBT may be low in clinical practice.2,4 It is recommended that no single parameter be used to judge SBT success or failure.3

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Subjective and Objective Predictors of Success of Spontaneous Breathing Trials

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Figueroa-Casas et al8 present a simple real-life emulating study of inter-observer agreement of SBT outcome. Their results showed > 90% agreement between the therapists with regard to success or failure of the trial. Although the agreement levels were considered to be statistically high, the remaining 10% disagreement may pose a dilemma clinically. Disagreement about the subjective criteria is understandable and expected.9 The merit of this study is the disagreement between clinicians regarding some of the objective criteria. The human element is involved in obtaining, evaluating, and interpreting even the objective criteria and is subject to different measurements and interpretations. The element of variability of such measurements also (eg, breathing frequency, effort, heart rate, blood pressure) makes it nearly impossible to have a 100% agreement between clinicians. Interestingly, in a study on the pathophysiologic basis of acute respiratory distress in subjects failed an SBT, the authors found that 20% of subjects who failed had the same respiratory mechanics as those who were successful.10 Granted that new research, further clarity of definitions, and training may improve the clinicians' agreement regarding the SBT,8 it is unlikely, however, that the art and science of weaning will lead to a perfect agreement between clinicians, and it is likely that the conundrum will continue. It would be of interest to repeat the same study after a period of education and training to evaluate whether we have better agreement levels and if we are getting along better.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Ehab G Daoud MD, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Kent Hospital, Warwick, RI 02886. E-mail: edaoud{at}kentri.org.
  • Dr Daoud has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 1324

  • Copyright © 2014 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. MacIntyre N
    . Discontinuing mechanical ventilatory support. Chest 2007;132(3):1049–1056.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Meade M,
    2. Guyatt G,
    3. Cook D,
    4. Griffith L,
    5. Sinuff T,
    6. Kergl C,
    7. et al
    . Predicting success in weaning from mechanical ventilation. Chest 2001;120(6):400S–424S.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. MacIntyre NR,
    2. Cook DJ,
    3. Ely EW Jr.,
    4. Epstein SK,
    5. Fink JB,
    6. Heffner JE,
    7. 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 American College of Crit Care Med Chest 2001;120(6):375S–395S.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Boles JM,
    2. Bion J,
    3. Connors A,
    4. Herridge M,
    5. Marsh B,
    6. Melot C,
    7. et al
    . Weaning from mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J 2007;29(5):1033–1056.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sessler CN,
    2. Grossman CE
    . Getting to the CORE of weaning? Respir Care 2011;56(10):1621–1624.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kollef MH,
    2. Shapiro SD,
    3. Silver P,
    4. St John RE,
    5. Prentice D,
    6. Sauer S,
    7. Ahrens TS,
    8. et al
    . A randomized, controlled trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 1997;25(4):567–574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ely EW,
    2. Baker AM,
    3. Dunagan DP,
    4. Burke HL,
    5. Smith AC,
    6. Kelly PT,
    7. et al
    . Effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously. N Engl J Med 1996;335(25):1864–1869.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Figueroa-Casas JB,
    2. Broukhim A,
    3. Vargas A,
    4. Milam L,
    5. Montoya R
    . Inter-observer agreement of spontaneous breathing trial outcome. Respir Care 2014;59(9):1324–1328.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Cappati KR,
    2. Tonella RM,
    3. Damascena AS,
    4. Pereira CA,
    5. Caruso P
    . Interobserver agreement rate of the spontaneous breathing trial. J Crit Care 2013;28(1):62–68.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Jubran A,
    2. Tobin MJ
    . Pathophysiologic basis of acute respiratory distress in patients who fail a trial of weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155(3):906–915.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 59 (9)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 59, Issue 9
1 Sep 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Monthly Podcast

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
Ehab G Daoud
Respiratory Care Sep 2014, 59 (9) 1458-1459; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03430

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
Ehab G Daoud
Respiratory Care Sep 2014, 59 (9) 1458-1459; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03430
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire