Naresh Mullaguri1, Zalan Khan1, Premkumar Nattanmai1, Christopher R Newey2. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Missouri, 5 Hospital Drive CE 540, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Missouri, 5 Hospital Drive CE 540, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA. neweyc@health.missouri.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delaying extubation in neurologically impaired patients otherwise ready for extubation is a source for significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. There is no consensus to suggest one spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) over another in predicting extubation success. We studied an algorithm using zero pressure support and zero positive end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) SBT followed by 5-cm H2O pressure support and 5-cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (i.e., 5/5) SBT in those who failed ZEEP SBT. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of intubated patients in a neurosciences intensive care unit. All eligible patients were initially challenged with ZEEP SBT. If failed, a 5/5 SBT was immediately performed. If passed either the ZEEP SBT or the subsequent 5/5 SBT, patients were liberated from mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: In total, 108 adult patients were included. The majority of patients were successfully liberated from mechanical ventilation using ZEEP SBT alone (82.4%; p = 0.0007). Fifteen (13.8%) patients failed ZEEP SBT but immediately passed 5/5 SBT (p = 0.0005). One patient (0.93%) required reintubation. We found high sensitivity of this extubation algorithm (100; 95% CI 95.94-100%) but poor specificity (6.67; 95% CI 0.17-31.95%). CONCLUSION: This study showed that the majority of patients could be successfully liberated from mechanical ventilation after a ZEEP SBT. In those who failed, a 5/5 SBT increased the successful liberation from mechanical ventilation.
BACKGROUND: Delaying extubation in neurologically impairedpatients otherwise ready for extubation is a source for significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. There is no consensus to suggest one spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) over another in predicting extubation success. We studied an algorithm using zero pressure support and zero positive end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) SBT followed by 5-cm H2O pressure support and 5-cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (i.e., 5/5) SBT in those who failed ZEEP SBT. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of intubated patients in a neurosciences intensive care unit. All eligible patients were initially challenged with ZEEP SBT. If failed, a 5/5 SBT was immediately performed. If passed either the ZEEP SBT or the subsequent 5/5 SBT, patients were liberated from mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: In total, 108 adult patients were included. The majority of patients were successfully liberated from mechanical ventilation using ZEEP SBT alone (82.4%; p = 0.0007). Fifteen (13.8%) patients failed ZEEP SBT but immediately passed 5/5 SBT (p = 0.0005). One patient (0.93%) required reintubation. We found high sensitivity of this extubation algorithm (100; 95% CI 95.94-100%) but poor specificity (6.67; 95% CI 0.17-31.95%). CONCLUSION: This study showed that the majority of patients could be successfully liberated from mechanical ventilation after a ZEEP SBT. In those who failed, a 5/5 SBT increased the successful liberation from mechanical ventilation.
Authors: Christopher D Anderson; James F Bartscher; Patricia D Scripko; Alessandro Biffi; Deborah Chase; Mary Guanci; David M Greer Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: A Esteban; I Alía; M J Tobin; A Gil; F Gordo; I Vallverdú; L Blanch; A Bonet; A Vázquez; R de Pablo; A Torres; M A de La Cal; S Macías Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: A Esteban; F Frutos; M J Tobin; I Alía; J F Solsona; I Valverdú; R Fernández; M A de la Cal; S Benito; R Tomás Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-02-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Scott Halpern; Jason D Christie; Robert Gallop; Barry D Fuchs Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.510