4.3 Article

Outcome of survivors of acute stroke who require prolonged ventilatory assistance and tracheostomy

期刊

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 325-331

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000080771

关键词

stroke; mechanical ventilation; outcome; tracheostomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: Mechanical ventilation after stroke is associated with high mortality. However, little is known about survivors who require prolonged ventilatory assistance and tracheostomy. Our goal was to assess the rate of pulmonary complication, effect of early tracheostomy and prognosis of patients with stroke requiring prolonged ventilatory support. Methods: Retrospective review of 97 patients with stroke who required ventilatory assistance and tracheostomy admitted to a single teaching hospital between 1976 and 2000. Outcome was defined using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). Results: Poor outcome (GOS 1 - 3) occurred in 74% of patients at 1 year and it was associated with older age ( p = 0.03), prior history of brain damage ( p = 0.02), and neurological worsening after intubation ( p < 0.01). However, long-term functional recovery ( GOS 4 - 5) was possible and more likely after strokes involving the posterior circulation ( p = 0.03). Pulmonary complications were prevalent and more frequent before tracheostomy (68 vs. 20% after tracheostomy) but did not determine functional outcome. Mean duration of mechanical ventilation was 11 +/- 19 days and did not significantly differ between outcome groups. Early tracheostomy correlated with shorter ICU and hospital stays ( p < 0.01 in both cases). Conclusions: Surviving patients with stroke who require prolonged ventilatory assistance and tracheostomy can have a better outcome than previously reported. Aggressive care is justified in patients who do not continue to deteriorate neurologically. Pulmonary complications are frequent but treatable. Early tracheostomy can shorten ICU and hospital stays and reduce costs. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.3
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