Comparisons of predictive performance of breathing pattern variability measured during T-piece, automatic tube compensation, and pressure support ventilation for weaning intensive care unit patients from mechanical ventilation

Objective: To investigate the influence of different ventilatory supports on the predictive performance of breathing pattern variability for extubation outcomes in intensive care unit patients. Design and Setting: A prospective measurement of retrospectively analyzed breathing pattern variability in a medical center. Patients: Sixty-eight consecutive and ready-for-weaning patients were divided into success (n = 45) and failure (n = 23) groups based on their extubation outcomes. Measurements: Breath-to-breath analyses of peak inspiratory flow, total breath duration, tidal volume, and rapid shallow breathing index were performed for three 30-min periods while patients randomly received T-piece, 100% inspiratory automatic tube compensation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, and 5 cm H2O pressure support ventilation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure trials. Coefficient of variations and data dispersion (standard descriptor values SD1 and SD2 of the Poincare plot) were analyzed to serve as breathing pattern variability indices. Main Results: Under all three trials, breathing pattern variability in extubation failure patients was smaller than in extubation success patients. Compared to the T-piece trial, 100% inspiratory automatic tube compensation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure and 5 cm H2O pressure support ventilation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure decreased the ability of certain breathing pattern variability indices to discriminate extubation success from extubation failure. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of these breathing pattern variability indices were: T-piece (0.73-0.87) > 100% inspiratory automatic tube compensation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (0.60-0.79) > 5 cm H2O pressure support ventilation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (0.53-0.76). Analysis of the classification and regression tree indicated that during the T-piece trial, a SD1 of peak inspiratory flow >3.36 L/min defined a group including all extubation success patients. Conversely, the combination of a SD1 of peak inspiratory flow <= 3.36 L/min and a coefficient of variations of rapid shallow breathing index <= 0.23 defined a group of all extubation failure patients. The decision strategies using SD1 of peak inspiratory flow and coefficient of variations of rapid shallow breathing index measured during 100% inspiratory automatic tube compensation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure and 5 cm H2O pressure support ventilation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure trials achieved a less clear separation of extubation failure from extubation success. Conclusions: Since 100% inspiratory automatic tube compensation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure and 5 cm H2O pressure support ventilation with 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure reduce the predictive performance of breathing pattern variability, breathing pattern variability measurement during the T-piece trial is the best choice for predicting extubation outcome in intensive care unit patients patients. (Crit Care Med 2011; 39:2253-2262)