BACKGROUND: The ventilatory capacity of the respiratory neuromuscular system can be studied with the hypercapnia test. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether decreased response to the hypercapnia test is associated with failure to pass a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) or extubation failure. METHODS: We studied 103 intubated patients ready for SBT. We used a hypercapnia test in which we approximately doubled the dead space and thus caused re-inhalation of expired air. We calculated 3 ratios: the ratio of P(0.1) (airway occlusion pressure 0.1 s after the onset of inspiratory effort) during hypercapnia test to baseline P(0.1); the ratio of the change in minute volume [DeltaV(E)] to the change in P(aCO(2)) (we call this ratio the hypercapnic ventilatory response); and the ratio of the change in P(0.1) [DeltaP(0.1)] to the change P(aCO(2)) (we call this ratio the hypercapnic-respiratory-drive response). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients failed the SBT, and 11 patients failed extubation. The mean values for the SBT/extubation-success group, the extubation-failure group, and the SBT-failure group, respectively, were: ratio of hypercapnia-test P(0.1) to baseline P(0.1): 4.3 +/- 2.7, 3.7 +/- 1.3, and 3.0 +/- 1.8 (P = .03); hypercapnic ventilatory response: 0.60 +/- 0.35 L/min/mm Hg, 0.50 +/- 0.26 L/min/mm Hg, and 0.31 +/- 0.21 L/min/mm Hg (P < .001); hypercapnic respiratory-drive response: 0.48 +/- 0.24 cm H(2)O/mm Hg, 0.42 +/- 0.19 cm H(2)O/mm Hg, and 0.27 +/- 0.15 cm H(2)O/mm Hg (P < .001). For predicting SBT/extubation success, the sensitivities and specificities, respectively, were: ratio of hypercapnia-test P(0.1) to baseline P(0.1) 0.80 and 0.47; hypercapnic ventilatory response 0.86 and 0.53; hypercapnic respiratory-drive response 0.82 and 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: The SBT/extubation-failure patients had less response to the hypercapnia test than did the SBT/extubation-success patients, and the hypercapnia test was not useful in predicting SBT or extubation success.
BACKGROUND: The ventilatory capacity of the respiratory neuromuscular system can be studied with the hypercapnia test. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether decreased response to the hypercapnia test is associated with failure to pass a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) or extubation failure. METHODS: We studied 103 intubated patients ready for SBT. We used a hypercapnia test in which we approximately doubled the dead space and thus caused re-inhalation of expired air. We calculated 3 ratios: the ratio of P(0.1) (airway occlusion pressure 0.1 s after the onset of inspiratory effort) during hypercapnia test to baseline P(0.1); the ratio of the change in minute volume [DeltaV(E)] to the change in P(aCO(2)) (we call this ratio the hypercapnic ventilatory response); and the ratio of the change in P(0.1) [DeltaP(0.1)] to the change P(aCO(2)) (we call this ratio the hypercapnic-respiratory-drive response). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients failed the SBT, and 11 patients failed extubation. The mean values for the SBT/extubation-success group, the extubation-failure group, and the SBT-failure group, respectively, were: ratio of hypercapnia-test P(0.1) to baseline P(0.1): 4.3 +/- 2.7, 3.7 +/- 1.3, and 3.0 +/- 1.8 (P = .03); hypercapnic ventilatory response: 0.60 +/- 0.35 L/min/mm Hg, 0.50 +/- 0.26 L/min/mm Hg, and 0.31 +/- 0.21 L/min/mm Hg (P < .001); hypercapnic respiratory-drive response: 0.48 +/- 0.24 cm H(2)O/mm Hg, 0.42 +/- 0.19 cm H(2)O/mm Hg, and 0.27 +/- 0.15 cm H(2)O/mm Hg (P < .001). For predicting SBT/extubation success, the sensitivities and specificities, respectively, were: ratio of hypercapnia-test P(0.1) to baseline P(0.1) 0.80 and 0.47; hypercapnic ventilatory response 0.86 and 0.53; hypercapnic respiratory-drive response 0.82 and 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: The SBT/extubation-failurepatients had less response to the hypercapnia test than did the SBT/extubation-success patients, and the hypercapnia test was not useful in predicting SBT or extubation success.
Authors: David Cordeiro Sousa; Inês Leal; Susana Moreira; Sónia do Vale; Ana S Silva-Herdade; Patrício Aguiar; Patrícia Dionísio; Luís Abegão Pinto; Miguel A R B Castanho; Carlos Marques-Neves Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.677