PURPOSE: We hypothesized that non-invasively determined work of breathing per minute (WOB(N)/min) (esophageal balloon not required) may be useful for predicting extubation outcome, i.e., appropriate work of breathing values may be associated with extubation success, while inappropriately increased values may be associated with failure. METHODS: Adult candidates for extubation were divided into a training set (n = 38) to determine threshold values of indices for assessing extubation and a prospective validation set (n = 59) to determine the predictive power of the threshold values for patients successfully extubated and those who failed extubation. All were evaluated for extubation during a spontaneous breathing trial (5 cmH(2)O pressure support ventilation, 5 cmH(2)O positive end expiratory pressure) using routine clinical practice standards. WOB(N)/min data were blinded to attending physicians. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of all extubation indices were determined. RESULTS: AUC for WOB(N)/min was 0.96 and significantly greater (p < 0.05) than AUC for breathing frequency at 0.81, tidal volume at 0.61, breathing frequency-to-tidal volume ratio at 0.73, and other traditionally used indices. WOB(N)/min had a specificity of 0.83, the highest sensitivity at 0.96, positive predictive value at 0.84, and negative predictive value at 0.96 compared to all indices. For 95% of those successfully extubated, WOB(N)/min was ≤10 J/min. CONCLUSIONS: WOB(N)/min had the greatest overall predictive accuracy for extubation compared to traditional indices. WOB(N)/min warrants consideration for use in a complementary manner with spontaneous breathing pattern data for predicting extubation outcome.
PURPOSE: We hypothesized that non-invasively determined work of breathing per minute (WOB(N)/min) (esophageal balloon not required) may be useful for predicting extubation outcome, i.e., appropriate work of breathing values may be associated with extubation success, while inappropriately increased values may be associated with failure. METHODS: Adult candidates for extubation were divided into a training set (n = 38) to determine threshold values of indices for assessing extubation and a prospective validation set (n = 59) to determine the predictive power of the threshold values for patients successfully extubated and those who failed extubation. All were evaluated for extubation during a spontaneous breathing trial (5 cmH(2)O pressure support ventilation, 5 cmH(2)O positive end expiratory pressure) using routine clinical practice standards. WOB(N)/min data were blinded to attending physicians. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of all extubation indices were determined. RESULTS: AUC for WOB(N)/min was 0.96 and significantly greater (p < 0.05) than AUC for breathing frequency at 0.81, tidal volume at 0.61, breathing frequency-to-tidal volume ratio at 0.73, and other traditionally used indices. WOB(N)/min had a specificity of 0.83, the highest sensitivity at 0.96, positive predictive value at 0.84, and negative predictive value at 0.96 compared to all indices. For 95% of those successfully extubated, WOB(N)/min was ≤10 J/min. CONCLUSIONS: WOB(N)/min had the greatest overall predictive accuracy for extubation compared to traditional indices. WOB(N)/min warrants consideration for use in a complementary manner with spontaneous breathing pattern data for predicting extubation outcome.
Authors: Babak Mokhlesi; Aiman Tulaimat; Ty J Gluckman; Yue Wang; Arthur T Evans; Thomas C Corbridge Journal: Respir Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: T Elizabeth Robertson; Henry J Mann; Robert Hyzy; Angela Rogers; Ivor Douglas; Aaron B Waxman; Craig Weinert; Philip Alapat; Kalpalatha K Guntupalli; Timothy G Buchman Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Michael J Banner; Carl G Tams; Neil R Euliano; Paul J Stephan; Trevor J Leavitt; A Daniel Martin; Nawar Al-Rawas; Andrea Gabrielli Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Maurizio Cecconi; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J R Curtis; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Salvatore M Maggiore; Jordi Mancebo; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 17.440