February 10, 2026

117. Pulm PEEPs Pearls: Spontaneous Breathing Trials

17 minutes

This week’s Pulm PEEPs Pearls episode is all about spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). SBTs are a standard part of the daily practice in the intensive care unit, but the exact methods vary across ICUs and institutions. Listen in to hear about the most common methods of SBTs, the physiology of each method, and what the evidence says.

Contributors

This episode was prepared with research by Pulm PEEPs Associate Editor George Doumat.

Dustin Latimer, another Pulm PEEPs Associate Editor, assisted with audio and video editing.

Key Learning Points

What an SBT is really testing

An SBT is a stress test for post-extubation work of breathing, not just a ventilator check.

The goal is to balance sensitivity and specificity:

Too hard → unnecessary failures and delayed extubation

Too easy → false positives and higher risk of reintubation

Common SBT modalities and how they compare

T-piece

No inspiratory support and no PEEP

Highest work of breathing

Most “physiologic” but often too strict

Pressure support (PS) + PEEP (e.g., 5/5 or 8/5)

Offsets ETT resistance and provides modest assistance

Easier to pass than T-piece

CPAP (0/5)

No inspiratory help, but provides PEEP to counter ETT resistance

Sits between PS and T-piece in difficulty

Evidence favors pressure-supported SBTs for most patients

Large meta-analysis (~6,000 patients, >40 RCTs):

Pressure-supported SBTs increase successful extubation (~7% absolute benefit)

No increase in reintubation rates

Trials (e.g., FAST trial):

Patients pass SBTs earlier

Leads to earlier extubation and fewer ventilator-associated risks

Bottom line: A 30-minute PS 5/5 SBT is evidence-based and appropriate for most stable ICU patients

When a T-piece still makes sense

T-piece SBTs are useful when:

Cost of reintubation is high

Difficult airway

Prior failed extubation

Pretest probability of success is low

Prolonged or difficult weaning

Tracheostomy vs extubation decisions

Need to mimic physiology without positive pressure

In LV dysfunction or pulmonary edema even small amounts PEEP may significantly improve physiology

Some centers use a hybrid approach: PS SBT → short confirmatory T-piece before extubation

CPAP as a middle ground

Rationale:

Allows full patient effort while compensating for ETT resistance

Evidence:

Fewer and smaller trials

Possible modest improvement in extubation success

No clear mortality or LOS benefit

Reasonable option based on patient physiology, institutional protocols, and clinician comfort

No single “perfect” SBT mode

Across PS, T-piece, CPAP, and newer methods (e.g., high-flow via ETT) there are no consistent differences in mortality or length of stay

What matters most:

Daily protocolized screening

Thoughtful bedside clinical judgment

Matching SBT difficulty to patient-specific risk

Institutional variation is normal—and acceptable

Examples:

PS 10/5 in postoperative surgical ICU patients

PS 5/0 as an intermediate difficulty option

Key question clinicians should ask: What does passing or failing this specific SBT tell me about this patient’s likelihood of post-extubation success?

Take-home pearls

SBTs are stress tests of post-extubation physiology.

PS 5/5 for 30 minutes is a strong default for most ICU patients.

T-piece trials are valuable when false positives are costly or physiology demands it.

CPAP is reasonable but supported by less robust data.

Consistency, daily screening, and judgment matter more than the exact mode.

References and Further Reading

Burns KEA, Khan J, Phoophiboon V, Trivedi V, Gomez-Builes JC, Giammarioli B, Lewis K, Chaudhuri D, Desai K, Friedrich JO. Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques for Extubating Adults and Children Who Are Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Feb 5;7(2):e2356794. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56794. PMID: 38393729; PMCID: PMC10891471.

Burns KEA, Sadeghirad B, Ghadimi M, Khan J, Phoophiboon V, Trivedi V, Gomez Builes C, Giammarioli B, Lewis K, Chaudhuri D, Desai K, Friedrich JO. Comparative effectiveness of alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care. 2024 Jun 8;28(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04958-4. PMID: 38849936; PMCID: PMC11162018.

Subirà C, Hernández G, Vázquez A, Rodríguez-García R, González-Castro A, García C, Rubio O, Ventura L, López A, de la Torre MC, Keough E, Arauzo V, Hermosa C, Sánchez C, Tizón A, Tenza E, Laborda C, Cabañes S, Lacueva V, Del Mar Fernández M, Arnau A, Fernández R. Effect of Pressure Support vs T-Piece Ventilation Strategies During Spontaneous Breathing Trials on Successful Extubation Among Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2175-2182. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.7234. Erratum in: JAMA. 2019 Aug 20;322(7):696. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11119. PMID: 31184740; PMCID: PMC6563557.

Burns KEA, Wong J, Rizvi L, Lafreniere-Roula M, Thorpe K, Devlin JW, Cook DJ, Seely A, Dodek PM, Tanios M, Piraino T, Gouskos A, Kiedrowski KC, Kay P, Mitchell S, Merner GW, Mayette M, D’Aragon F, Lamontagne F, Rochwerg B, Turgeon A, Sia YT, Charbonney E, Aslanian P, Criner GJ, Hyzy RC, Beitler JR, Kassis EB, Kutsogiannis DJ, Meade MO, Liebler J, Iyer-Kumar S, Tsang J, Cirone R, Shanholtz C, Hill NS; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Frequency of Screening and Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024 Dec 3;332(21):1808-1821. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.20631. PMID: 39382222; PMCID: PMC11581551.

Mahul M, Jung B, Galia F, Molinari N, de Jong A, Coisel Y, Vaschetto R, Matecki S, Chanques G, Brochard L, Jaber S. Spontaneous breathing trial and post-extubation work of breathing in morbidly obese critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2016 Oct 27;20(1):346. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1457-4. PMID: 27784322; PMCID: PMC5081985.

Yi LJ, Tian X, Chen M, Lei JM, Xiao N, Jiménez-Herrera MF. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Four Different Spontaneous Breathing Trials for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 22;8:731196. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.731196. PMID: 34881255; PMCID: PMC8647911.

...more

View all episodes

By PulmPEEPs

4.9

5555 ratings