The overall effect was not significant (MD = 21 hours, 95% CI –10 to 53) but favoured the experimental group ( Figure 6, see also Figure 7 on eAddenda for detailed forest plot). Survival: Three studies ( Cader et al 2010, Caruso et al 2005, Martin et al 2011) with 150 participants provided data on the effects of inspiratory muscle training on survival (RR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.77). The overall effect was not significant but favoured inspiratory
muscle training ( Figure 8, see also Figure 9 on eAddenda for detailed forest plot). Reintubation: Only one study ( Caruso et al 2005) reported the effect of inspiratory muscle training on reintubation, providing data on 34 participants. Three of 17 (18%) of the experimental group and five of 17 (29%) of the control group were reintubated. This difference selleck products between groups was not statistically significant (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.12). Tracheostomy: One study ( Cader et al 2010) reported the effect of inspiratory muscle training on tracheostomy, providing data on 33 participants. Three of 17 (18%) of the experimental group and 2 of 16 (13%) of the control group received a tracheostomy,
which was not a statistically significant difference (RR = 1.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.38). Adverse events: One study ( Martin et al 2011) reported no adverse effects during either the training or the sham training. One study ( Cader et al 2010) did not document occurrence of adverse events. One study ( Caruso et al 2005) no reported adverse effects in the experimental group including paradoxical breathing, Raf inhibitor tachypnea, desaturation, haemodynamic instability, and supraventricular tachycardia. However, it is not clear whether the control group underwent an equivalent period of observation
for adverse events. Numerous case reports and case series have described the use of inspiratory muscle training in mechanically ventilated patients (Martin et al 2002, Bissett and Leditschke, 2007, Sprague and Hopkins, 2003, Aldrich et al 1989, Aldrich and Uhrlass, 1987, Abelson and Brewer, 1987). All of these studies observed an increase in maximal inspiratory pressure or training pressure and suggested that this may have aided weaning from mechanical ventilation. While the data analysed in this review confirm that inspiratory muscle training improves maximal inspiratory pressure significantly, it remains unclear whether these benefits translate to weaning success and a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation. Although only three randomised trials were identified by this review, the total number of patients who contributed data was substantial (n = 150). The average rating of the quality of the three studies in this review (ie, 6 on the 10-point PEDro scale) is greater than the average score for trials in physiotherapy (Maher et al 2008).