4.5 Article

Weaning predictors do not predict extubation failure in simple-to-wean patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.07.079

Keywords

Mechanical ventilation; Predictive index; Weaning; Extubation; Cutoff values; Receiver operating characteristic curve

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Predictor indexes are often included in weaning protocols and may help the intensive care unit (ICU) staff to reach expected weaning outcome in patients on mechanical ventilation. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential of weaning predictors during extubation. Design: This is a prospective clinical study. Settings: The study was conducted in 3 medical-surgical ICUs. Patients: Five hundred consecutive unselected patients ventilated for more than 48 hours were included. Methods and Measurements: All patients were extubated after 30 minutes of successful spontaneous breathing trial and followed up for 48 hours. The protocol evaluated hemodynamics, ventilation parameters, arterial blood gases, and the weaning indexes frequency to tidal volume ratio; compliance, respiratory rate, oxygenation, and pressure; maximal inspiratory pressure; maximal expiratory pressure; PaO2/fraction of inspired oxygen; respiratory frequency; and tidal volume during mechanical ventilation and in the 1st and 30th minute of spontaneous breathing trial. Results: Reintubation rate was 22.8%, and intensive care mortality was higher in the reintubation group (10% vs 31%; P < .0001). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed that tests did not discriminate which patients could tolerate extubation. Conclusion: Usual weaning indexes are poor predictors for extubation outcome in the overall ICU population. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available