Table 3.
Comparison of variables related to weaning process
| Cohort 1998 | Cohort 2004 | Cohort 2010 | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 100) | (N = 239) | (N = 473) | ||
| Accidental extubation, n (%)a | 3 (3) | 6 (3) | 29 (6) | 0.062 |
| Reintubation, % | 67 | 33 | 14 | 0.074 |
| Patients weaned and scheduled extubated, n (%) | 47 (47) | 104 (44) | 211 (45) | 0.856 |
| Method for first attempt | ||||
| Spontaneous breathing trial, n (%) | 33/47 (70) | 71/104 (68) | 154/211(73) | 0.675 |
| T-piece, % | 48.5 | 38 | 36 | 0.022 |
| CPAP, % | 6 | 34 | 24 | |
| Low level pressure support, % | 42 | 27 | 40 | |
| Other, % | 3 | 1 | 0 | |
| Gradual reduction of support, n (%) | 14/47 (30) | 33/104 (32) | 57/211 (27) | 0.675 |
| Pressure support, % | 14 | 61 | 89 | <0.001 |
| SIMV, % | 29 | 6 | 0 | |
| SIMV-PS, % | 50 | 18 | 9 | |
| Other, % | 7 | 15 | 2 | |
| Failure of first weaning attempt, n (%) | 24/47 (51) | 45/104 (43) | 95/211 (45) | 0.667 |
| Method for second attempt | ||||
| Spontaneous breathing trial, n (%) | 21 (87.5) | 10 (22) | 59 (62) | <0.001 |
| T-piece, % | 67 | 40 | 36 | 0.049 |
| CPAP, % | 5 | 20 | 34 | |
| Low level pressure support, % | 24 | 40 | 30 | |
| Other, % | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| Gradual reduction of support, n (%) | 3 (12.5) | 35 (78) | 36 (38) | <0.001 |
| Pressure support, % | 0 | 66 | 94 | <0.001 |
| SIMV, % | 0 | 6 | 0 | |
| SIMV-PS, % | 100 | 14 | 3 | |
| Other, % | 0 | 14 | 3 | |
| Reintubation after scheduled extubation, % | 11 | 7 | 11 | 0.426 |
| Tracheotomy, n (%)a | 12 (12) | 30 (13) | 66 (14.5) | 0.758 |
aExcluded patients with prior tracheostomy: 1 patient in 1998, 7 patients in 2004 and 18 patients in 2010.
SIMV, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation; SIMV-PS, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support; PSV, pressure support ventilation; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure.