4.2 Article

Failed extubation in the neonatal intensive care unit

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.07.018

Keywords

extubation; neonate; tracheostomy; endoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the causes of failed extubation in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and the need for airway intervention. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital. Patients: We identified all premature infants (gestational age <37 weeks) admitted to the NICU of a tertiary care children's hospital from January 1998 until December 2006 who underwent direct laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy (DLB) in the operating room (OR) for failed extubation. Data was collected on weight, gestational age, comorbid conditions, number of failed extubations, findings at DLB and whether or not a tracheostomy was performed. Results: DLBs were performed on 63 patients to evaluate the cause of failed extubation. Group A comprised of 50 patients who underwent tracheostomy. They had an average gestational age of 30.0 weeks, birth weight of 1457 g and number of failed extubations 2.68. Group B consisted of 13 patients who did not undergo tracheostomy. They had an average gestational age of 34.5 weeks, birth weight of 2309 g and number of failed extubations 1.33. 56.0% of the tracheostomy group and 38.5% of the non-tracheostomy group had chronic lung disease (CLD). At endoscopy, 44% of Group A and 23.1% of Group B had some degree of subglottic stenosis. Conclusion: Abnormal laryngotracheal findings are common in neonates who fail extubation. When compared to their counterparts with similar co-morbidities, neonates with CLD, gestational age of 30 weeks or below and low birth weight are twice as likely to have subglottic edema and fail extubation. They are also likely to be candidates for a tracheostomy. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available