- Weaning Patients With Tracheostomy
Weaning Patients With Tracheostomy
Among patients with a tracheostomy requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and treated at a single long-term care facility, unassisted breathing using an oxygen delivery device connected to a tracheostomy collar, compared with using a method known as pressure support, resulted in earlier weaning (gradually decreasing dependence on assisted ventilation), although there was no difference between the methods in patient survival at 6 and 12 months, according to a JAMA study published online. The study is being released early to coincide with its presentation at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 42nd Critical Care Congress.
“Patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation, defined as more than 21 days, account for more than 13 percent of ventilated patients and 37 percent of intensive care unit (ICU) costs. Because of changes in U.S. reimbursement practices, these patients are usually transferred to centers that specialize in weaning, also known as long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs). The number of LTACHs increased from 192 to 408 between 1997 and 2006, and costs increased by 267 percent, reaching $1.3 billion in 2006,” according to background information in the article. The number of ICU patients transferred to LTACHs for weaning from prolonged ventilation is expected to increase substantially. “The most effective method of weaning such patients has not been investigated.”
Amal Jubran, M.D., of the Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, IL., and colleagues conducted a study to compare the length of time required for weaning from prolonged ventilation with pressure support vs. unassisted breathing through an oxygen-delivery device connected to a tracheostomy collar (holds the tracheostomy tube in place). Pressure support is mechanical ventilatory assistance in which the ventilator provides support for each breath using a preset amount of pressure. Between 2000 and 2010, a randomized study was conducted in tracheotomized patients transferred to a single LTACH (RML Specialty Hospital, Hinsdale, IL.) for weaning from prolonged ventilation. Of 500 patients who underwent a 5-day screening procedure, 316 did not tolerate the procedure and were randomly assigned to receive weaning with pressure support (n = 155) or a tracheostomy collar (n = 161). Survival at 6- and 12-month time points was also determined.
Of 316 patients, 4 were withdrawn and not included in analysis. Of 152 patients in the pressure-support group, 68 (44.7 percent) were weaned; 22 (14.5 percent) died. Of 160 patients in the tracheostomy collar group, 85 (53.1 percent) were weaned; 16 (10.0 percent) died. Among the entire group of randomized patients, median (midpoint) weaning time was shorter with tracheostomy collar use than with pressure support: 15 days vs. 19 days. Among patients who completed the study (n = 194), median weaning time was shorter with tracheostomy collar use than with pressure support: 13 days vs. 19 days.
The researchers also found there was no significant difference in mortality between the pressure-support group vs. the tracheostomy collar group at 6 months (55.92 percent vs. 51.25 percent) and 12 months (66.45 percent vs. 60.00 percent). Frequency of adverse events (new episode of pneumonia, arrhythmias, pneumothorax) was similar in the 2 groups.
“This study has 3 major findings. First, tracheostomy collar use resulted in earlier weaning than did pressure support in patients who required prolonged mechanical ventilation. Second, the influence of weaning method on rate of successful weaning was related to time taken to fail the screening procedure: weaning was faster with tracheostomy collar use than with pressure support in the late-failure group but not in the early-failure group. Third, mortality was equivalent in the pressure-support and tracheostomy collar groups at 6 and 12 months,” the authors write.
DISCLAIMER: Bankix Systems Ltd is the registered name of a Canadian firm since 2003, and bankixsystems.com is its OFFICIAL website. Besides these entities, we have no relationship with anyone, business, website, or any other entity anywhere in the world, claiming to be Bankix Systems, or using a similar name, and creating the impression that it has some connection with our company. We do not endorse and are therefore, not responsible for any act or lack thereof by any such entity. Bankix Systems Ltd is also not responsible for the content of the description of products and services linked to our site nor does it necessarily endorse them. The information here provided is not for diagnosing/treating your health concerns. Kindly contact your doctor or health care professional for all your healthcare requirements.
Contents © 2003-2018, BankixSystems.com. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited. Information based on best available resources. Opinions are current and subject to change.