Early identification of extubation failure using integrated pulmonary index and high-risk factors

21Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early detection and prevention of extubation failure offers the potential to improve patient outcome. The primary aim of this study was to compare the predictive ability of the Integrated Pulmonary Index and presence of high-risk factors in determining extubation failure. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of intubated adult subjects receiving mechanical ventilation for > 24 h was conducted at an academic medical center. The primary outcome was extubation failure, defined as the need for re-intubation or rescue noninvasive ventilation within 48 h after planned extubation. RESULTS: Among 216 subjects, 170 (78.7%) were success-fully extubated, and 46 (21.3%) failed extubation. Extubation failure group had higher body mass index (26.21 vs 28.5 kg/m2, P = .033), rapid shallow breathing index during spontaneous breathing trial (43 vs 53.5, P = .02), and APACHE II score (11.86 vs 15.73, P 12 on extubation day (odds ratio 2.98 [95% CI 1.22–7.27], P = .02), and Integrated Pulmonary Index decrease within 1 h after extubation (odds ratio 7.74 [95% CI 3.45–17.38], P 24 h, decreasing Integrated Pulmonary Index within the first hour postextubation was a predictor of extubation failure and was superior to other weaning variables collected in this retrospective study. The presence of ≥ 3 high-risk factors was also independently associated with extubation failure. Future clinical studies are required to prospec-tively test the ability of postextubation Integrated Pulmonary Index monitoring to guide additional interventions designed to reduce re-intubation rates and improve patient outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaur, R., Vines, D. L., Patel, A. D., Lugo-Robles, R., & Balk, R. A. (2021). Early identification of extubation failure using integrated pulmonary index and high-risk factors. Respiratory Care, 66(10), 1542–1548. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08656

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free