Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included trials

From: Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author and year Interventions Country Publication Type Population Duration of ventilation at inclusion
Feeley 1975 [18] (n = 25) T-piece/PEEP 5 cmH2O vs T-piece USA Full Adult Not reported
Hastings 1980 [19] (n = 18) IMV/CPAP 5 cmH2O vs T-piece/CPAP 5 cmH2O USA Full Adult Perioperative
Prakash 1982 [20] (n = 28) IMV vs SVT (on ventilator) The Netherlands Full Adult Perioperative
Koller 1983 [21] (n = 45) CPAP 10 cmH2O vs T-piece/ZEEP Austria Full Adult Perioperative
Jones 1991 [22] (n = 106) CPAP 5 cmH2O vs T-piece/ZEEP USA Full Adult Not reported
Abalos 1992 [23] (n = 62) SIMV vs CPAP 4 cmH2O vs T-piece USA Full Adult Perioperative
Bailey 1995 [24] (n = 82) T-piecea vs CPAP 5 cmH2O vs CPAP 10 cmH2O England Full Adult Perioperative
Schinco 1995 [25] (n = 30) PS 5 cmH2O/CPAP 5 cmH2O vs CPAP 5 cmH2O USA Abstract Adult Perioperative
Esteban 1997 [26] (n = 484) T-piece vs PS 7 cmH2O Spain and South America Full Adult >48 hours
Holanda 2000 [27] (n = 35) T-piece vs PS Brazil Abstract Adult >48 hours
Farias 2001 [28] (n = 257) T-piece vs PS 10 cmH2O ± PEEP 5 cmH2O Argentina Full Pediatric >48 hours
Haberthur 2002 [29] (n = 90) PS 5 cmH2O/PEEP 5 cmH2O vs ATC/PEEP 5 cmH2O vs T-piece Switzerland Full Adult >24 hours
Koksal 2004 [30] (n = 60) PS < 10 cmH2O/PEEP < 5 cmH2O vs CPAP < 5 cmH2O vs T-piece Turkey Full Adult >48 hours
Matic 2004 [31] (n = 260) T-piece vs PS 8 cmH2O Croatia Full Adult >48 hours
Cohen 2006 [32] (n = 99) ATCb/CPAP 5 cmH2O vs CPAP 5 cmH2O Israel Full Adult >24 hours
Liang 2006 [33] (n = 97) ATC vs T-piece Taiwan Abstract Adult >4 days
Colombo 2007 [34] (n = 120) T-piece vs PS 7 cmH2O/PEEP 5 cmH2O Brazil Full Adult >48 hours
Matic 2007 [35] (n = 136) T-piece vs PS (not specified) Croatia Full Adult >24 hours
Fayed 2008 [36] (n = 30) ATCb/CPAP 5 cmH2O vs CPAP 5 cmH2O Egypt Abstract Adult >24 hours
Cohen 2009 [37] (n = 180) ATCb/CPAP 5 cmH2O vs PS 7 cmH2O/CPAP 5 cmH2O Israel Full Adult >24 hours
Zhang 2009 [38] (n = 208) T-piece vs PS 5 cmH2O/PEEP 5 cmH2O China Full Adult Not reported
Figueroa-Casas 2010 [39] (n = 122) ATCb/PEEP 5 cmH2O vs CPAP 5 cmH2O USA Full Adult >24 hours
Molina-Saldarriaga 2010 [40] (n =50) CPAPc vs T-piece Colombia Full Adult >48 hours
Cekman 2011 [41] (n = 40) CPAP < 5 cmH2O vs T-piece Turkey Full Adult >48 hours
Vats 2012 [42] (n = 40) T-piece vs PS 7 cmH2O India Full Adult Not reported
El-beleidy 2013 [43] (n = 36) ATCb/CPAP 5 cmH2O vs PS 6–10 cmH2O/CPAP 5 cmH2O Egypt Full Pediatric >24 hours
Lourenco 2013 [44] (n = 30) T-piece vs PS (not specified) Brazil Full Adult Perioperative
Sherif 2013 [45] (n = 100) PS (not specified) vs PS/ATC Egypt Abstract Adult Not reported
Bilan 2015 [46] (n = 51) CPAP vs T-piece Iran Full Pediatric Not reported
Chittawatanarat 2015 [47] (n = 520) T-piece vs PS 7 cmH2O/PEEP < 5 cmH2O Thailand Abstract Adult >12 hours
Teixeira 2015 [48] (n = 160) PS 7 cmH2O/PEEP 5 –8 cmH2O vs PAV+/PEEP 5 –8 cmH2O vs T-piece Brazil Full Adult >24 hours
  1. PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, IMV intermittent mandatory ventilation, CPAP continuous positive airway pressure, SVT spontaneous ventilation trial, ZEEP zero end-expiratory pressure, SIMV synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation, PS pressure support, ATC automatic tube compensation; PAV+ proportional assist ventilation with load adjustable gain factors
  2. aT-piece with CPAP 0 cmH2O
  3. bATC with 100% compensation
  4. cCPAP set to 85% of intrinsic PEEP