Literature DB >> 26622532

Extubation outcome after a successful spontaneous breathing trial: A multicenter validation of a 3-factor prediction model.

Yang Liu1, Y U Mu2, Guo-Qiang Li1, Xin Yu3, Pei-Jun Li4, Zhi-Qi Shen5, Hao-Xun Wang6, Lu-Qing Wei1.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to validate, and if necessary update, a predictive model previously developed using a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm for predicting successful extubation (ES) using a new cohort. This prospective cohort study enrolled adults admitted to 10 intensive care units, who had successfully passed a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and were considered ready for extubation. After extubation, the patients were followed up for 48 h. The primary outcome measure was ES, defined as the ability to maintain spontaneous unassisted breathing for >48 h after extubation. The 3-factor CART model was applied to patients in this cohort. The predicted probability of ES for each patient in this validation cohort was calculated based on the original CART model using the Laplace correction method. The performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration. A decision curve analysis was used assess the clinical net benefit (NB). Extubation failure (EF) occurred in 90/530 patients (17%). Among the 90 patients, 72 (13.6%) were reintubated, while 18 patients remained on rescue noninvasive ventilation within 48 h after extubation. The original CART model showed high discrimination but only moderate calibration with predicted probabilities that were systematically lower than expected. The original CART model was updated, and the updated model preserved excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.93), but exhibited near-perfect calibration (calibration slope, 1; intercept, 0). Between threshold probabilities of 50 and 80%, the NB of using this updated model is significantly improved compared with the current strategy. The updated CART model may be used to estimate the predicted probability of ES after a successful SBT for individual patients. Applying this model appears to produce a substantial clinical consequence with regard to potential reduction in unexpected EFs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  calibration; decision curve analysis; decision trees; endotracheal extubation; model updating

Year:  2015        PMID: 26622532      PMCID: PMC4578010          DOI: 10.3892/etm.2015.2678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Ther Med        ISSN: 1792-0981            Impact factor:   2.447


  37 in total

1.  Risk factors for extubation failure in patients following a successful spontaneous breathing trial.

Authors:  Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Niall D Ferguson; Andrés Esteban; Scott K Epstein; Yaseen Arabi; Carlos Apezteguía; Marco González; Nicholas S Hill; Stefano Nava; Gabriel D'Empaire; Antonio Anzueto
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Predicting extubation failure after successful completion of a spontaneous breathing trial.

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

3.  Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions.

Authors:  Brendan M Reilly; Arthur T Evans
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Hester F Lingsma; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Ben Van Calster
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 4.686

5.  Patients' prediction of extubation success.

Authors:  Andreas Perren; Marco Previsdomini; Michael Llamas; Bernard Cerutti; Sandor Györik; Giorgio Merlani; Philippe Jolliet
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Outcomes of extubation failure in medical intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  Arnaud W Thille; Anatole Harrois; Frédérique Schortgen; Christian Brun-Buisson; Laurent Brochard
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Pathophysiologic basis of acute respiratory distress in patients who fail a trial of weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  A Jubran; M J Tobin
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 21.405

8.  Weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  J-M Boles; J Bion; A Connors; M Herridge; B Marsh; C Melot; R Pearl; H Silverman; M Stanchina; A Vieillard-Baron; T Welte
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 16.671

9.  Accuracy of automatic tube compensation in new-generation mechanical ventilators.

Authors:  Serge Elsasser; Josef Guttmann; Reto Stocker; Georg Mols; Hans-Joachim Priebe; Christoph Haberthür
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  The combination of the load/force balance and the frequency/tidal volume can predict weaning outcome.

Authors:  Theodoros Vassilakopoulos; Christina Routsi; Christina Sotiropoulou; Charis Bitsakou; Ioannis Stanopoulos; Charis Roussos; Spyros Zakynthinos
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-03-07       Impact factor: 17.440

View more
  2 in total

1.  Prediction of extubation outcome in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Flavia Torrini; Ségolène Gendreau; Johanna Morel; Guillaume Carteaux; Arnaud W Thille; Massimo Antonelli; Armand Mekontso Dessap
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 9.097

2.  Reintubation Summation Calculation: A Predictive Score for Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Patients.

Authors:  Vikas Bansal; Nathan J Smischney; Rahul Kashyap; Zhuo Li; Alberto Marquez; Daniel A Diedrich; Jason L Siegel; Ayan Sen; Amanda D Tomlinson; Carla P Venegas-Borsellino; William David Freeman
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.