Part 4: Non-Invasive Support and Ventilator Liberation

14. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

14.1 High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC)

14.1.1 Mechanism and Physiological Effects

High-flow nasal cannula delivers heated, humidified oxygen at flow rates up to 60–80 L/min through large-bore nasal prongs. Its physiological benefits include:¹²

Effect	Mechanism
Washout of nasopharyngeal dead space	High flow flushes CO2-rich gas from the upper airway, improving alveolar ventilation efficiency
Positive airway pressure	Low-level PEEP effect (2–7 cmH2O, flow-dependent) with mouth closed; helps maintain airway patency and functional residual capacity
Reduced work of breathing	Meeting or exceeding the patient’s inspiratory flow demand eliminates the entrainment of room air that dilutes oxygen with standard nasal cannula
Reliable FiO2 delivery	Because flow exceeds inspiratory demand, the set FiO2 is actually delivered (unlike standard nasal cannula where actual FiO2 depends on breathing pattern)
Mucociliary function preservation	Heated, humidified gas preserves mucosal integrity and facilitates secretion clearance
Patient comfort	Better tolerated than face masks or NIV in many patients; allows eating, speaking, and coughing

14.1.2 Evidence: The FLORALI Trial

The pivotal trial evaluating HFNC in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure was published in 2015.¹

FLORALI Trial Design:

310 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ≤300) without hypercapnia, not primarily from cardiogenic edema or COPD exacerbation
Randomized to three groups: HFNC at 50 L/min, standard face mask oxygen, or NIV
Primary outcome: intubation rate at 28 days

Results:

Outcome	HFNC	Standard Oxygen	NIV	Significance
Intubation rate	38%	47%	50%	p = 0.18 (NS overall)
90-day mortality	12%	23%	28%	p = 0.02 (HFNC vs. standard)
Subgroup P/F ≤200: Intubation	35%	53%	58%	p = 0.009
Ventilator-free days (28-day)	24 ± 8	22 ± 10	19 ± 12	p = 0.02
Comfort at 1 hour (VAS)	Best	Intermediate	Worst	—

Key findings:

While the primary endpoint (overall intubation rate) was not statistically significant, HFNC significantly reduced 90-day mortality compared to both standard oxygen and NIV¹
In the more hypoxemic subgroup (PaO2/FiO2 ≤200), HFNC significantly reduced intubation rates
NIV performed worse than both other strategies, possibly due to higher tidal volumes generated during NIV (mean VT 9.2 mL/kg IBW) causing patient self-inflicted lung injury
The mortality benefit with HFNC was one of the unexpected findings that has reshaped the approach to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

14.1.3 HFNC Settings and Management

Parameter	Recommendation
Initial flow rate	40–60 L/min (start at 50 L/min for most adults)
FiO2	Titrate to SpO2 92–96%
Temperature	37°C (may reduce to 34–36°C if patient reports discomfort)
Interface	Appropriately sized nasal prongs (should not occlude >50% of nares)
Mouth breathing	Encourage mouth-closed breathing for maximum PEEP effect; however, HFNC provides benefit even with mouth open through dead space washout

14.1.4 Monitoring for HFNC Failure (ROX Index)

The ROX index provides an objective assessment of HFNC response and predicts the need for intubation:³

$$ROX = \frac{SpO_2/FiO_2}{Respiratory\ Rate}$$

ROX Index	Interpretation	Action
≥4.88 at 2, 6, or 12 hours	Low risk of HFNC failure	Continue HFNC
3.85–4.88	Intermediate risk	Close monitoring; reassess frequently
<3.85 at 2, 6, or 12 hours	High risk of HFNC failure	Consider intubation; do not delay if clinical deterioration

Criteria for intubation in patients on HFNC:

Red Flag	Action
Persistent or worsening hypoxemia (SpO2 <92% on FiO2 ≥0.7)	Intubate
Respiratory rate >35 persistently	Intubate
Worsening respiratory distress (accessory muscle use, diaphoresis)	Intubate
Hemodynamic instability	Intubate
Altered mental status	Intubate
ROX <3.85 at 6–12 hours	Strongly consider intubation
Failure to improve after 6–12 hours of HFNC	Do not persist; intubate

Critical point: Delayed intubation in patients failing HFNC is associated with increased mortality. HFNC should not be used to avoid intubation when intubation is clearly needed. Frequent reassessment and a low threshold for intubation are essential.⁴

14.2 Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV/BiPAP) in ARDS

14.2.1 General Considerations

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV), typically delivered as bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), has a limited and carefully circumscribed role in ARDS.²⁵

Concerns with NIV in ARDS:

Concern	Explanation
High tidal volumes	Pressure support + patient effort can generate VT >8–12 mL/kg IBW, causing lung injury (P-SILI); the FLORALI trial found mean VT of 9.2 mL/kg in the NIV group¹
Inability to control VT	NIV does not guarantee lung-protective tidal volumes
Mask intolerance	Critically ill patients often poorly tolerate face masks; breaks in NIV result in derecruitment
Delayed intubation	NIV may mask deterioration and delay necessary intubation, worsening outcomes⁴
Aspiration risk	Positive pressure with a face mask may increase gastric distension and aspiration risk
Inability to perform prone positioning	Most centers do not prone patients on NIV (though awake proning is increasingly practiced)

14.2.2 Situations Where NIV May Be Considered

Situation	Rationale	Caution
Immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure	Multiple trials show that early NIV in immunocompromised patients (hematologic malignancy, solid organ transplant) can reduce intubation and mortality⁵	More recent data (HIGH trial, 2018) challenged this, showing no NIV benefit in immunocompromised patients; HFNC may be preferred⁶
Mild ARDS (P/F 200–300) in the initial hours	Brief trial of NIV while assessing trajectory; may avoid intubation in some patients	Strict time limit (1–2 hours); intubate if not improving
Cardiogenic pulmonary edema component	NIV is highly effective for cardiogenic pulmonary edema; if a mixed picture is suspected, a brief NIV trial is reasonable	Distinguish from pure ARDS
DNI (do not intubate) patients	NIV as ceiling of care	Comfort and goals-of-care discussion essential

14.2.3 NIV Settings if Used in ARDS

Parameter	Setting
Mode	BiPAP (spontaneous/timed)
IPAP	8–12 cmH2O (start low, titrate to comfort and VT)
EPAP	5–10 cmH2O
Target VT	<8 mL/kg IBW (this is difficult to achieve and monitor on NIV)
FiO2	Titrate to SpO2 92–96%
Interface	Full face mask (oronasal) preferred; total face mask or helmet for better PEEP delivery
Maximum trial duration	1–2 hours for reassessment; if no improvement or clinical worsening, intubate without further delay

14.2.4 Helmet NIV

Helmet NIV (a transparent hood encompassing the entire head, sealed at the neck) offers theoretical advantages over face mask NIV in ARDS:⁷

Better PEEP delivery and less air leak
Improved patient comfort and tolerance
Potentially lower tidal volumes due to the compliant interface dampening pressure swings
A single-center randomized trial showed that helmet NIV reduced intubation rates and 90-day mortality compared to face mask NIV in ARDS⁷

However, helmet NIV requires specialized equipment, training, and close monitoring. It is not widely available and is not considered standard of care. When available, it may be preferred over face mask NIV for patients with ARDS who are candidates for a non-invasive approach.

15. Ventilator Liberation (Weaning)

15.1 Importance of Protocolized Liberation

Ventilator liberation (historically termed “weaning”) is the process of transitioning a patient from mechanical ventilation to spontaneous breathing and eventual extubation. It accounts for a significant portion of the total duration of mechanical ventilation — up to 40–50% in many patients. Protocolized approaches to liberation reduce duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and complications.⁸⁹

15.2 Readiness Assessment: Criteria for Spontaneous Breathing Trial

Before attempting a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), the patient should meet the following readiness criteria:⁸⁹

Criterion	Threshold
Cause of respiratory failure	Resolving or resolved
Oxygenation	PaO2/FiO2 ≥150 (or SpO2 ≥92% on FiO2 ≤0.4 and PEEP ≤8 cmH2O)
Hemodynamic stability	No or low-dose vasopressors (norepinephrine ≤0.1 mcg/kg/min or equivalent); no active myocardial ischemia; stable heart rate
Neurological status	Able to initiate spontaneous breaths; follows commands or has purposeful movements; no continuous sedative infusions (or minimal)
Adequate cough	Can generate effective cough when suctioned
Manageable secretions	Not requiring suctioning more than every 2 hours
No planned procedures	No upcoming return to OR or need for deep sedation
Acid-base	pH ≥7.25
Temperature	<38.5°C (relative; fever alone should not preclude SBT if other criteria met)

15.3 Spontaneous Awakening Trial (SAT) — Coordination with SBT

15.3.1 The ABC (Awakening and Breathing Coordination) Trial

The landmark ABC trial (2008) demonstrated that pairing daily spontaneous awakening trials (interruption of sedative infusions) with daily spontaneous breathing trials significantly improved outcomes compared to SBT alone.¹⁰

ABC Trial Results:

Outcome	SAT + SBT (coordinated)	SBT Alone (usual sedation)	Significance
Ventilator-free days (28-day)	14.7	11.6	p = 0.02
ICU-free days (28-day)	9.1	6.2	p = 0.01
1-year mortality	44%	58%	HR 0.68, p = 0.01
Self-extubation	10%	4%	Higher in SAT group but offset by overall benefit

15.3.2 SAT + SBT Protocol

Step 1: Spontaneous Awakening Trial (SAT)

SAT Element	Detail
Safety screen	No active seizures; no alcohol withdrawal requiring infusion; no escalating sedation for agitation; no neuromuscular blockade; no acute myocardial ischemia
Procedure	Stop all continuous sedative infusions (propofol, midazolam, dexmedetomidine); continue analgesic infusions at reduced rate
Observation	Assess for 30 minutes; observe for agitation (RASS >+1), anxiety, desaturation, respiratory distress, tachycardia
If passes SAT	Proceed immediately to SBT
If fails SAT	Restart sedation at half the previous rate; re-attempt SAT next day

Step 2: Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT)

15.4 Spontaneous Breathing Trial Methods

Method	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages
T-piece trial	Patient breathes through ETT connected to a T-piece with supplemental oxygen; no ventilator support	Most closely replicates post-extubation conditions; avoids compensatory ventilator support that may mask inability to breathe independently	No monitoring of VT or RR by ventilator; higher work of breathing due to ETT resistance; may overestimate post-extubation difficulty (ETT resistance removed after extubation)
Pressure support ventilation (PSV) trial	Patient breathes on ventilator with low pressure support (5–8 cmH2O) and PEEP 0–5 cmH2O	Compensates for ETT resistance; ventilator provides continuous monitoring; slightly less demanding than T-piece	May underestimate post-extubation work of breathing; PS of 5–8 may provide meaningful support
Automatic tube compensation (ATC)	Ventilator provides variable flow to exactly overcome ETT resistance based on tube size	Most physiologically accurate simulation of post-extubation breathing	Not available on all ventilators; requires correct tube size input
CPAP trial	Patient breathes on CPAP 5 cmH2O without pressure support	Simple; maintains some FRC	Less commonly studied than T-piece or PSV

Evidence on SBT method:

The clinical practice guideline from the major thoracic and chest physician societies recommends a 30-minute SBT using inspiratory pressure augmentation (PSV 5–8 cmH2O) rather than a T-piece or CPAP trial, based on evidence showing shorter time to successful extubation and lower ICU mortality with this approach⁸
A T-piece trial may be appropriate when the clinician wants a more rigorous assessment of extubation readiness (e.g., patients with previous SBT/extubation failures)
Duration: 30 minutes is recommended (120-minute trials confer no additional benefit and may unnecessarily fatigue patients)⁸

15.5 SBT Assessment Criteria

The SBT is considered PASSED if the patient tolerates 30 minutes without any of the following:

Failure Criterion	Threshold
Respiratory rate	>35 breaths/min for >5 minutes
SpO2	<90% (or decrease >4% from baseline)
Heart rate	>140 bpm, or increase >20% from baseline, or new arrhythmia
Systolic blood pressure	>180 mmHg or <90 mmHg
Agitation or anxiety	Diaphoresis, accessory muscle use, paradoxical breathing, distress
Altered mental status	Somnolence, decreased consciousness
Rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI)	>105 breaths/min/L (see below)

15.6 Rapid Shallow Breathing Index (RSBI)

The RSBI (also known as the frequency-to-tidal volume ratio, f/VT) is the most widely used predictor of weaning success.¹¹

$$RSBI = \frac{Respiratory\ Rate\ (breaths/min)}{Tidal\ Volume\ (liters)}$$

RSBI Value	Interpretation	Positive Predictive Value
<105	Likely to tolerate extubation	~80%
80–105	Intermediate; proceed with SBT and clinical assessment	—
>105	High likelihood of SBT failure	Negative predictive value ~95%

Measurement technique:

Measure during the first 1–3 minutes of the SBT (before respiratory muscle fatigue develops)
Patient should be breathing spontaneously with no or minimal support
Use average RR and VT over 1 minute

Limitations:

RSBI is most accurate when measured without any ventilatory support (T-piece)
Less predictive in patients with chronic respiratory disease, neurological impairment, or prolonged ventilation
Should be used as one component of a comprehensive assessment, not as a sole decision point

15.7 Extubation Criteria

After a successful 30-minute SBT, extubation should be performed if all of the following are met:⁸⁹

Criterion	Requirement
Passed SBT	Tolerated 30 minutes without failure criteria
Adequate cough	Can generate strong cough on command; peak cough flow >60 L/min (if measured)
Manageable secretions	Suctioning frequency ≤every 2 hours; secretions not copious or tenacious
Neurological status	Awake, follows commands, GCS ≥8 (especially eye opening and motor response)
Ability to protect airway	Intact gag and swallow reflexes
No upper airway obstruction anticipated	See cuff leak test below
No planned return to OR in next 24 hours	—

15.8 Cuff Leak Test

The cuff leak test assesses for upper airway edema that may cause post-extubation stridor and reintubation.¹²

Technique:

Suction the oropharynx and above-cuff secretions
Set the ventilator to volume-assist/control
Record the average exhaled tidal volume over 6 breaths with the cuff inflated
Deflate the endotracheal tube cuff
Record the average exhaled tidal volume over the next 6 breaths with the cuff deflated
Cuff leak volume = Inspired VT − Exhaled VT (with cuff deflated)

Cuff Leak Volume	Interpretation	Action
>110 mL (or >10–15% of VT)	Adequate leak; low risk of post-extubation stridor	Proceed with extubation
≤110 mL (or ≤10–15% of VT)	Absent or minimal leak; increased risk of post-extubation stridor	Consider dexamethasone 4 mg IV every 6 hours for 24 hours before extubation; repeat cuff leak test; have reintubation equipment ready

Indications for cuff leak test:

Prolonged intubation (>48–72 hours)
Traumatic or difficult intubation
Large ETT relative to airway
Prior failed extubation with stridor
Not routinely needed for short intubations (<48 hours)

Dexamethasone for stridor prevention:

Dexamethasone 4 mg IV every 6 hours for 4 doses (beginning 12–24 hours before planned extubation) reduces the incidence of post-extubation stridor and reintubation in patients with a low cuff leak volume¹²
Consider empiric dexamethasone for all patients intubated >48 hours if not already on corticosteroids

15.9 Post-Extubation Respiratory Support

15.9.1 Evidence for Post-Extubation HFNC

Post-extubation HFNC has been shown to reduce reintubation rates in high-risk patients:¹³¹⁴

Trial	Population	Intervention	Result
Hernandez et al. (2016) — High-risk	Patients at high risk for reintubation (age >65, heart failure, COPD, ≥2 failed SBTs, obesity, etc.)	HFNC vs. NIV post-extubation	Non-inferior: reintubation 22.8% vs. 19.1% (HFNC non-inferior to NIV)¹³
Hernandez et al. (2016) — Low-risk	Patients at low risk for reintubation	HFNC vs. standard nasal cannula	Reintubation 4.9% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.004¹⁴
Thille et al. (2019)	High-risk patients after planned extubation	HFNC + NIV vs. HFNC alone post-extubation	Reintubation 11.8% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.02¹⁵

15.9.2 Post-Extubation Support Protocol

Risk Category	Definition	Recommended Support
Low risk	Age <65, no CHF, no COPD, first extubation attempt, SBT passed easily	HFNC at 40–50 L/min for 24 hours → standard nasal cannula if tolerating
High risk	Age ≥65, CHF, moderate-severe COPD, failed SBT requiring re-trial, BMI >30, prolonged ventilation (>7 days), multiple comorbidities	HFNC at 50–60 L/min alternating with NIV (BiPAP IPAP 8–12, EPAP 5) for first 24–48 hours¹⁵
Very high risk	Prior reintubation, neuromuscular disease, severe COPD with hypercapnia	NIV as primary post-extubation support; HFNC between NIV sessions; continuous monitoring in ICU

15.10 Management of Extubation Failure

Time Frame	Assessment	Action
Within 48 hours	Reintubation required	Reintubate without delay; analyze cause (upper airway, respiratory failure, secretions, cardiac); consider tracheostomy if repeated failure
Immediate stridor	Upper airway edema	Nebulized racemic epinephrine (0.5 mL of 2.25% in 3 mL saline); consider reintubation with smaller ETT; plan for dexamethasone and delayed re-extubation
Respiratory failure (hypoxemia, hypercapnia, fatigue)	Inadequate respiratory reserve	Brief trial of NIV if cause is rapidly reversible (e.g., flash pulmonary edema); otherwise reintubate promptly; analyze contributing factors
Inability to protect airway	Neurological or bulbar dysfunction	Reintubate; consider tracheostomy for prolonged airway protection needs

Critical point: Do NOT delay reintubation when a patient is failing post-extubation. Prolonged attempts with NIV or HFNC to avoid reintubation after extubation failure are associated with worse outcomes, including cardiac arrest during emergency reintubation.⁴

15.11 Tracheostomy Timing

15.11.1 Evidence

Trial	Year	Comparison	Result
TracMan	2013	Early tracheostomy (≤4 days) vs. late (≥10 days) in patients expected to require prolonged MV	No mortality difference (30.8% vs. 31.5%); 54% of late group never needed tracheostomy¹⁶
SETPOINT	2010	Early (≤4 days) vs. late (≥10 days) tracheostomy	No mortality difference; early tracheostomy reduced sedation and ICU length of stay¹⁷

15.11.2 Recommendations

Recommendation	Detail
Routine early tracheostomy (≤7 days)	NOT recommended for all patients; many patients extubate successfully with protocolized weaning
Consider tracheostomy at 10–14 days	If continued need for mechanical ventilation is anticipated, ongoing sedation requirements, or failed extubation attempts
Individualized decision	Based on: anticipated trajectory of underlying disease, neurological status and ability to protect airway, secretion burden, likelihood of successful extubation in next 7 days, patient/family preferences
Percutaneous vs. surgical	Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) at bedside is the preferred technique in most ICU patients; surgical tracheostomy for patients with unfavorable anatomy, prior neck surgery, or coagulopathy
Contraindications to bedside PDT	Uncorrectable coagulopathy (INR >1.5, platelets <50,000), anterior neck mass, high-riding innominate artery, morbid obesity with inability to extend neck

16. Ventilator-Associated Lung Injury (VILI) Prevention Bundle

16.1 Comprehensive VILI Prevention Strategy

Component	Target	Rationale
Tidal volume	4–6 mL/kg IBW	Reduces volutrauma; landmark trial evidence¹⁸
Plateau pressure	≤30 cmH2O	Reduces barotrauma
Driving pressure	<15 cmH2O	Strongest individual predictor of outcome; integrates VT and PEEP appropriateness¹⁹
PEEP	Adequate to prevent cyclic derecruitment; individualized	Reduces atelectrauma
FiO2	Lowest achieving SpO2 92–96%	Reduces oxygen toxicity
Prone positioning	≥16 hours/day in severe ARDS	Homogenizes ventilation distribution; reduces regional strain²⁰
Spontaneous breathing	Allow when appropriate (light sedation, RASS 0 to −1); avoid in early severe ARDS if generating excessive efforts	Prevents diaphragm atrophy; but uncontrolled efforts can cause P-SILI
Sedation minimization	Target lightest sedation compatible with safe ventilation	Reduces duration of MV; prevents over-sedation complications
Fluid management	Conservative after initial resuscitation	Reduces pulmonary edema and improves compliance²¹
Early mobility	When safe and feasible	Prevents deconditioning; may reduce ventilator duration

16.2 Ventilator-Induced Diaphragm Dysfunction (VIDD)

Mechanical ventilation causes rapid diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction, contributing to weaning failure:²²

Factor	Effect
Controlled ventilation	Diaphragm disuse atrophy begins within 18–24 hours; 50% fiber area reduction by day 3–4
Excessive support (over-assistance)	Partial support with too-high pressure support also contributes to disuse
Excessive spontaneous effort (under-assistance)	Can cause eccentric contraction injury (load-induced myotrauma)
PEEP	Shortens diaphragm fibers at FRC; may impair force generation

Prevention of VIDD:

Transition to partial support modes (pressure support, proportional assist) as soon as clinical condition allows
Maintain some degree of spontaneous effort when safe (not in early severe ARDS with high transpulmonary pressures)
Minimize duration of neuromuscular blockade
Daily SBT attempts to exercise the diaphragm
Diaphragm ultrasound may be used to monitor thickness and thickening fraction as indicators of diaphragm activity and health

References

Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al. “High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.” N Engl J Med, 372(23), 2185-2196, 2015. FLORALI trial. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1503326. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1503326 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Rochwerg B, Einav S, Chaudhuri D, et al. “The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: a clinical practice guideline.” Intensive Care Med, 46(12), 2226-2237, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y ↩︎ ↩︎
Roca O, Caralt B, Messika J, et al. “An index combining respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict outcome of nasal high-flow therapy.” Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 199(11), 1368-1376, 2019. doi:10.1164/rccm.201803-0589OC. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201803-0589OC ↩︎
Kang BJ, Koh Y, Lim CM, et al. “Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality.” Intensive Care Med, 41(4), 623-632, 2015. doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3693-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3693-5 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, et al. “Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure.” Eur Respir J, 50(2), 1602426, 2017. doi:10.1183/13993003.02426-2016. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.02426-2016 ↩︎ ↩︎
Azoulay E, Pickkers P, Soares M, et al. “Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational observational study.” Intensive Care Med, 43(12), 1808-1819, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4947-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4947-1 ↩︎
Patel BK, Wolfe KS, Pohlman AS, et al. “Effect of noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet vs face mask on the rate of endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.” JAMA, 315(22), 2435-2441, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.6338. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.6338 ↩︎ ↩︎
Girard TD, Alhazzani W, Kress JP, et al. “An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians clinical practice guideline: liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults.” Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 195(1), 120-133, 2017. ATS/ACCP. doi:10.1164/rccm.201610-2075ST. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201610-2075ST ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Schmidt GA, Girard TD, Kress JP, et al. “Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults: executive summary of an official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline.” Chest, 151(1), 160-165, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.036 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, et al. “Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.” Lancet, 371(9607), 126-134, 2008. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60105-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60105-1 ↩︎
Yang KL, Tobin MJ. “A prospective study of indexes predicting the outcome of trials of weaning from mechanical ventilation.” N Engl J Med, 324(21), 1445-1450, 1991. doi:10.1056/NEJM199105233242101. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199105233242101 ↩︎
Darmon JY, Rauss A, Dreyfuss D, et al. “Evaluation of risk factors for laryngeal edema after tracheal extubation in adults and its prevention by dexamethasone: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study.” Anesthesiology, 77(2), 245-251, 1992. doi:10.1097/00000542-199208000-00004. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199208000-00004 ↩︎ ↩︎
Hernandez G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, et al. “Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs noninvasive ventilation on reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial.” JAMA, 316(15), 1565-1574, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.14194 ↩︎ ↩︎
Hernandez G, Vaquero C, Gonzalez P, et al. “Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial.” JAMA, 315(13), 1354-1361, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.2711 ↩︎ ↩︎
Thille AW, Muller G, Gacouin A, et al. “Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal oxygen alone on reintubation among patients at high risk of extubation failure: a randomized clinical trial.” JAMA, 322(15), 1465-1475, 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.14901. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.14901 ↩︎ ↩︎
Young D, Harrison DA, Cuthbertson BH, Rowan K; TracMan Collaborators. “Effect of early vs late tracheostomy placement on survival in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: the TracMan randomized clinical trial.” JAMA, 309(20), 2121-2129, 2013. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.5154. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.5154 ↩︎
Terragni PP, Antonelli M, Fumagalli R, et al. “Early vs late tracheotomy for prevention of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial.” JAMA, 303(15), 1483-1489, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.447. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.447 ↩︎
The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. “Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome.” N Engl J Med, 342(18), 1301-1308, 2000. NHLBI ARDS Network. doi:10.1056/NEJM200005043421801. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200005043421801 ↩︎
Amato MBP, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. “Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.” N Engl J Med, 372(8), 747-755, 2015. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1410639. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1410639 ↩︎
Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, et al. “Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.” N Engl J Med, 368(23), 2159-2168, 2013. PROSEVA trial. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1214103. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1214103 ↩︎
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network; Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al. “Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury (FACTT).” N Engl J Med, 354(24), 2564-2575, 2006. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062200. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062200 ↩︎
Goligher EC, Dres M, Fan E, et al. “Mechanical ventilation-induced diaphragm atrophy strongly impacts clinical outcomes.” Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 197(2), 204-213, 2018. doi:10.1164/rccm.201703-0536OC. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201703-0536OC ↩︎