Outcomes of different pulmonary rehabilitation protocols in patients under mechanical ventilation with difficult weaning: a retrospective cohort study

Background: The endeavor of liberating patients from ventilator dependence within respiratory care centers (RCCs) poses considerable challenges. Multiple factors contribute to this process, yet establishing an effective regimen for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) remains uncertain. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate existing rehabilitation protocols, ascertain associations between clinical factors and patient outcomes, and explore the influence of these protocols on the outcomes of the patients to shape suitable rehabilitation programs. Methods: Conducted at a medical center in northern Taiwan, the retrospective study examined 320 newly admitted RCC patients between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. Each patient received a tailored PR protocol, following which researchers evaluated weaning rates, RCC survival, and 3-month survival as outcome variables. Analyses scrutinized differences in baseline characteristics and prognoses among three PR protocols: protocol 1 (routine care), protocol 2 (routine care plus breathing training), and protocol 3 (routine care plus breathing and limb muscle training). Results: Among the patients, 28.75% followed protocol 1, 59.37% protocol 2, and 11.88% protocol 3. Variances in age, body-mass index, pneumonia diagnosis, do-not-resuscitate orders, Glasgow Coma Scale scores (≤ 14), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE) scores were notable across these protocols. Age, APACHE scores, and abnormal blood urea nitrogen levels (> 20 mg/dL) significantly correlated with outcomes—such as weaning, RCC survival, and 3-month survival. Elevated mean hemoglobin levels linked to increased weaning rates (p = 0.0065) and 3-month survival (p = 0.0102). Four adjusted models clarified the impact of rehabilitation protocols. Notably, the PR protocol 3 group exhibited significantly higher 3-month survival rates compared to protocol 1, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 3.87 to 3.97 across models. This association persisted when comparing with protocol 2, with ORs between 3.92 and 4.22. Conclusion: Our study showed that distinct PR protocols significantly affected the outcomes of ventilator-dependent patients within RCCs. The study underlines the importance of tailored rehabilitation programs and identifies key clinical factors influencing patient outcomes. Recommendations advocate prospective studies with larger cohorts to comprehensively assess PR effects on RCC patients.