OBJECTIVES:A number of complications exist with invasive mechanical ventilation and with the use of and withdrawal from prolonged ventilator support. The use of protocols that enable the systematic identification of patients eligible for an interruption in mechanical ventilation can significantly reduce the number of complications. This study describes the application of a weaning protocol and its results.METHODS:Patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were included and assessed daily to identify individuals who were ready to begin the weaning process.RESULTS:We studied 252 patients with a median mechanical ventilation time of 3.7 days (interquartile range of 1 to 23 days), a rapid shallow breathing index value of 48 (median), a maximum inspiratory pressure of 40 cmH2O, and a maximum expiratory pressure of 40 cm H2O (median). Of these 252 patients, 32 (12.7%) had to be reintubated, which represented weaning failure. Noninvasive ventilation was used postextubation in 170 (73%) patients, and 15% of these patients were reintubated, which also represented weaning failure. The mortality rate of the 252 patients studied was 8.73% (22), and there was no significant difference in the age, gender, mechanical ventilation time, and maximum inspiratory pressure between the survivors and nonsurvivors.CONCLUSIONS:The use of a specific weaning protocol resulted in a lower mechanical ventilation time and an acceptable reintubation rate. This protocol can be used as a comparative index in hospitals to improve the weaning system, its monitoring and the informative reporting of patient outcomes and may represent a future tool and source of quality markers for patient care.

In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

Objective To evaluate the vital capacity after two chest therapy techniques in patients undergoing abdominal surgical.Methods A prospective randomized study carried out with patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after abdominal surgery. We checked vital capacity, muscular strength using the Medical Research Council scale, and functionality with the Functional Independence Measure the first time the patient was breathing spontaneously (D1), and also upon discharge from the Intensive Care Unit (Ddis). Between D1 and Ddis, respiratory therapy was carried out according to the randomized group.Results We included 38 patients, 20 randomized to Positive Intermittent Pressure Group and 18 to Volumetric Incentive Spirometer Group. There was no significant gain related to vital capacity of D1 and Ddis of Positive Intermittent Pressure Group (mean 1,410mL±547.2 versus 1,809mL±692.3; p=0.979), as in the Volumetric Incentive Spirometer Group (1,408.3mL±419.1 versus 1,838.8mL±621.3; p=0.889). We observed a significant improvement in vital capacity in D1 (p<0.001) and Ddis (p<0.001) and in the Functional Independence Measure (p<0.001) after respiratory therapy. The vital capacity improvement was not associated with gain of muscle strength.Conclusion Chest therapy, with positive pressure and volumetric incentive spirometer, was effective in improving vital capacity of patients submitted to abdominal surgery.

No abstract