4.6 Article

A derived and validated score to predict prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 153, Issue 1, Pages 108-115

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.08.020

Keywords

prolonged mechanical ventilation; cardiac surgery; validated model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Prolonged mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery imposes a significant burden on the patient in terms of morbidity as well as a financial burden on the hospital. We undertook a retrospective analysis of 2 prospectively collected databases developed in tertiary cardiac care centers to derive and validate a risk index predicting prolonged mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery. Methods: We studied a retrospective cohort of 32,045 patients undergoing cardiac surgery in 2 hospitals in Toronto, Canada. The development cohort consisted of 21,661 patients at Toronto General Hospital. Data Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada, with 10,384 patients, served as an institutional validation cohort. We operationally characterized prolonged mechanical ventilation as the duration from surgery completion to extubation exceeding 48 hours. Results: Prolonged postoperative mechanical ventilation rates in the development and validation cohort were 6% and 7%, respectively. Multivariable regression in the development cohort showed that the following factors were strong predictors of prolonged mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery: previous cardiac surgery, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, shock, surgery involving repair of congenital heart disease, and cardiopulmonary bypass time. The intraoperative multivariable model retained good discrimination in the validation cohort, achieving a c statistic of 0.787. Conclusions: Prolonged mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery can be accurately predicted by readily available pre- and intraoperative information.

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