Evidence Hub

Sedation and Ventilator Weaning Bundle and Time to Extubation in Infants With Bronchiolitis: Secondary Analysis of the Sedation AND Weaning in Children (SANDWICH) Trial

R. Mitting, C. McDowell, B. Blackwood, S. Ray

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 2025

784 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Sedation and Weaning in Children (SANDWICH) trial of a sedation weaning and ventilator liberation bundle had a primary outcome of time to successful extubation, and showed significant but small difference. We explored the impact of the intervention on infants with bronchiolitis. DESIGN: Post hoc subgroup analysis of a cluster-randomized trial, 2018 to 2019 (ISRCTN16998143). PATIENTS: Surviving patients with bronchiolitis under 1 year of age in the SANDWICH trial (n = 784). INTERVENTIONS: Nil. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to successful extubation, and rates of unplanned and failed extubation were compared in patients exposed and not exposed to the intervention. To explore a site-level effect, we tested the correlation between the rate of unplanned and failed extubation at each trial site with the median time to successful extubation at that site. Of 784 patients (48%), 376 were exposed to the intervention. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to successful extubation was 69.6 (IQR 50.4–110.4) hours in patients exposed to the intervention and 86.4 (IQR 60–124.8) hours in non-exposed. Exposure to the SANDWICH intervention was associated with a 13% (95% CI, 1%–26%) reduction in time to extubation following adjustment for confounders. Thirty (3.8%) patients experienced unplanned extubation and 112 (14%) failed extubation. Patients who experienced failed extubation had an increased time to successful extubation, which remained significant after adjustment…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 784 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free