4.6 Article

Predicting non-invasive ventilation failure in children from the SpO2/FiO2 (SF) ratio

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 1095-1103

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-2880-5

Keywords

Non invasive positive-pressure ventilation; Acute respiratory failure; Clinical markers; Hypoxemia; Mechanical ventilation; Pediatrics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our objective was to assess whether SpO(2)/FiO(2) (SF) ratio could be a useful NIV outcome predictor in children with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and tried to develop a predictive model of NIV failure. Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Episodes of ARF-fulfilling inclusion criteria from 15 January 2010 to 14 January 2011 were treated with NIV according to a pre-established protocol. Clinical variables were collected at baseline and at 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 h. Failure criterion was the need for endotracheal intubation. Failures were considered as early if occurring a parts per thousand currency sign6 h after NIV initiation, intermediate if occurring between 6 and 24 h, and late if occurring after 24 h. Variables with a p < 0.1 in univariate analysis corrected by age were included in multivariate analysis. Models were calculated based on multivariate analysis. During the study period, 390 episodes were included. NIV success rate was 81.3 %. Among ARF causes, failure occurred most frequently in ARDS episodes. The failure predictive model for the whole sample included SF ratio at 1 h, age and PRISM III-24 (area under the curve AUC of 0.755). For early NIV failures, SF ratio at 1 h was the only variable within model (AUC 0.748). The analysis of intermediate NIV failures identified 3 variables independently linked to NIV outcome: PRISM III-24, RR decrease at 6 h, and SF ratio at 6 h (AUC 0.895). No model was identified for late NIV failure. SF ratio is a reliable predictor of early NIV failure in children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available