4.7 Article

Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Deep-Seated Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Risk Factors and Clinical Implications

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10051015

关键词

prolonged mechanical ventilation; intracerebral hemorrhage; intensive care

资金

  1. Medical Faculty of the University Bonn [2015-11B-05/2015FKS-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the impact of prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) on mortality in patients with deep-seated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and identify associated risk factors. The results showed that ICH volume >30 mL and admission SOFA score > 5 were significant and independent predictors for the need of PMV in patients with deep-seated ICH.
While management of patients with deep-seated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is well established, there are scarce data on patients with ICH who require prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) during the course of their acute disease. Therefore, we aimed to determine the influence of PMV on mortality in patients with ICH and to identify associated risk factors. From 2014 to May 2020, all patients with deep-seated ICH who were admitted to intensive care for >3 days were included in further analyses. PMV is defined as receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 7 days. A total of 42 out of 94 patients (45%) with deep-seated ICH suffered from PMV during the course of treatment. The mortality rate after 90 days was significantly higher in patients with PMV than in those without (64% versus 22%, p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified ICH volume >30 mL (p = 0.001, OR 5.3) and admission SOFA score > 5 (p = 0.007, OR 4.2) as significant and independent predictors for PMV over the course of treatment in deep-seated ICH. With regard to the identified risk factors for PMV occurrence, these findings might enable improved guidance of adequate treatment at the earliest possible stage and lead to a better estimation of prognosis in the course of ICH treatment.

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

4.7
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