What is the most reliable indicator of successful ventilatory weaning?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: October 30, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

The Most Reliable Indicator of Successful Ventilatory Weaning

The frequency-to-tidal volume ratio (f/Vt) <100 is the most reliable indicator of successful ventilatory weaning. 1

Understanding the Predictive Value of Different Weaning Indices

Frequency-to-Tidal Volume Ratio (f/Vt or RSBI)

  • The f/Vt ratio (also known as Rapid Shallow Breathing Index or RSBI) has consistently demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting weaning success 2
  • Values less than 105 breaths/minute/L indicate patients likely to be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation 1
  • More specifically, values <80 breaths/minute/L strongly predict weaning success with a likelihood ratio of 7.53 1
  • Values >100 breaths/minute/L strongly predict weaning failure with a likelihood ratio of 0.04 1
  • The f/Vt ratio has the highest area under the ROC curve (0.89) compared to other weaning indices, demonstrating superior discriminatory power 2, 3

Negative Inspiratory Force (NIF)

  • Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (PI,max or NIF) values more negative than -30 cm H2O have approximately 80% sensitivity for predicting weaning success 1
  • However, PI,max has poor specificity (0.21-0.69) and a relatively low area under the ROC curve (0.61) 2, 1
  • This makes NIF less reliable than f/Vt for predicting weaning outcomes 2, 3

Oxygenation Parameters

  • PO2 >100 with FiO2 of 40% is not a reliable predictor of weaning success 1
  • Oxygenation parameters such as PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio have an area under the ROC curve of only 0.48, making them unreliable predictors 1

PCO2 Levels

  • PCO2 <40 mm Hg alone is not a reliable predictor of weaning success 2
  • PCO2 levels do not account for respiratory muscle endurance or the pattern of breathing, which are critical factors in successful weaning 2

Important Clinical Considerations

Proper Measurement Technique

  • The f/Vt ratio should be measured after at least 1-2 minutes of spontaneous breathing, not during the first minute when respiratory drive may still be suppressed 2
  • Measurements taken after 30-60 minutes of spontaneous breathing have better predictive value (ROC area 0.92) than those taken during the first minute (ROC area 0.74) 1

Patient-Specific Factors

  • Women have higher RSBI values than men, which cannot be explained by body size 2
  • Narrow endotracheal tubes (≤7 mm internal diameter) in women further increase RSBI, leading to higher false-negative rates 2
  • The predictive value of f/Vt is less helpful when clinicians already strongly suspect the patient can tolerate weaning 2

Systematic Approach to Weaning

  • A systematic screening approach for weaning readiness should include multiple parameters: 1, 4
    • PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio ≥200
    • PEEP ≤5 cm H₂O
    • f/Vt ≤105 breaths/minute/L
    • Intact cough on suctioning
    • Absence of sedative or vasopressor infusions

Conclusion on Weaning Indicators

Based on the evidence, the correct answer is (d) f/Vt <100. This parameter has consistently demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting weaning success with the largest area under the ROC curve (0.89) 2, 3. It integrates important aspects of respiratory mechanics and provides the best balance of sensitivity and specificity compared to other weaning indices 1.

References

Guideline

Weaning Indices for Mechanical Ventilation

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.