Weaning from mechanical ventilation in people with neuromuscular disease: A systematic review

25Citations
Citations of this article
80Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective This systematic review aimed in assessing the effects of different weaning protocols in people with neuromuscular disease (NMD) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, identifying which protocol is the best and how different protocols can affect weaning outcome success, duration of weaning, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay and mortality. Design Systematic review. Data sources Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus) were searched from January 2009 to August 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT that evaluated patients with NMD (adults and children from 5 years old) in the weaning process managed with a protocol (pressure support ventilation; synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation; continuous positive airway pressure; â € T' piece). Primary outcome Weaning success. Secondary outcomes Weaning duration, ICU stay, hospital stay, ICU mortality, complications (pneumothorax, ventilation-associated pneumonia). Data extraction and synthesis Two review authors assessed the titles and the abstracts for inclusion and reviewed the full texts independently. Results We found no studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Conclusions The absence of studies about different weaning protocols for patients with NMD does not allow concluding the superiority of any specific weaning protocol for patients with NMD or determining the impact of different types of protocols on other outcomes. The result of this review encourages further studies. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019117393.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Neto, S. C. G. B., Torres-Castro, R., Lima, Í., Resqueti, V. R., & Fregonezi, G. A. F. (2021). Weaning from mechanical ventilation in people with neuromuscular disease: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047449

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free