4.7 Article

Diaphragm weakness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/cc12792

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL 100239, HL113494]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [RC1HL100239, R01HL113494] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. Veterans Affairs [I01BX002132] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Studies indicate that mechanically ventilated patients develop significant diaphragm muscle weakness, but the etiology of weakness and its clinical impact remain incompletely understood. We assessed diaphragm strength in mechanically ventilated medical ICU patients, correlated the development of diaphragm weakness with multiple clinical parameters, and examined the relationship between the level of diaphragm weakness and patient outcomes. Methods: Transdiaphragmatic twitch pressure (PdiTw) in response to bilateral magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerves was measured. Diaphragm weakness was correlated with the presence of infection, blood urea nitrogen, albumin, and glucose levels. The relationship of diaphragm strength to patient outcomes, including mortality and the duration of mechanical ventilation for successfully weaned patients, was also assessed. Results: We found that infection is a major risk factor for diaphragm weakness in mechanically ventilated medical ICU patients. Outcomes for patients with severe diaphragm weakness (PdiTw < 10 cmH(2)O) were poor, with a markedly increased mortality (49%) compared to patients with PdiTw >= 10 cmH(2)O (7% mortality, P = 0.022). In addition, survivors with PdiTw < 10 cmH(2)O required a significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation (12.3 +/- 1.7 days) than those with PdiTw >= 10 cmH(2)O (5.5 +/- 2.0 days, P = 0.016). Conclusions: Infection is a major cause of severe diaphragm weakness in mechanically ventilated patients. Moreover, diaphragm weakness is an important determinant of poor outcomes in this patient population.

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