4.6 Article

Decannulation After a Severe Acquired Brain Injury

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 1906-1913

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.05.004

关键词

Brain injuries; Bronchoscopy; Consciousness disorders; Rehabilitation; Tracheostomy

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify the effect of some clinical characteristics of severe acquired brain injury (sABI) patients on decannulation success during their intensive rehabilitation unit (IRU) stay. Design: Nonconcurrent cohort study. Setting: Don Gnocchi Foundation Institute. Participants: Patients (N=351) with sABI and tracheostomy were retrospectively selected from the database of the IRU of the Don Gnocchi Foundation Institute. Main Outcome Measures: Potential predictors of decannulation were screened from variables collected at admission during clinical examination, conducted by trained and experienced examiners. The association between clinical characteristics and decannulation status was investigated through a Cox regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves were then created for time-event analysis. Results: Among the patients (mean age, 64.1 +/- 15.5y), 54.1% were decannulated during their IRU stay. Absence of pulmonary infections (P<.001), sepsis (P=.001), tracheal alteration at the fibrobronchoscopy examination (P=.004) and a higher Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) score (P<.001) or a better state of consciousness at admission (P=.001) were associated with a higher probability of decannulation. Conclusions: Fibrobronchoscopy assessment of patency of airways and accurate evaluation of the state of consciousness using the CRS-R are relevant in this setting of care to better identify patients who are more likely to have the tracheostomy tube removed. These results may help clinicians choose the appropriate timing and intensity of rehabilitation interventions and plan for discharge. (C) 2020 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据