STUDY OBJECTIVE: To analyze the determinants of an individual patient's duration of mechanical ventilation and assess interhospital variations for average durations of ventilation. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, inception, cohort study. SETTING: Forty-two ICUs at 40 US hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 5,915 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation on ICU day 1 selected from the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) III database of 17,440 admissions. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Utilizing APACHE III data collected on the 5,915 patients, multivariate regression analysis was performed on selected patients and disease characteristics to determine which variables were significantly associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation. An equation predicting duration of ventilation was then developed using the significant predictor variables and its accuracy was evaluated. Variables significantly associated with duration of ventilation included primary reason for ICU admission, day 1 acute physiology score (APS) of APACHE III, age, prior patient location and hospital length of stay, activity limits due to respiratory disease, serum albumin, respiratory rate, and PaO2/FIo2 measurements. Using an equation derived from these variables, predicted durations of ventilation were then calculated and compared with actual observed durations for each of the 42 ICUs. Average duration of ventilation for the 42 ICUs ranged from 2.6 to 7.9 days, but 60% of this variation was accounted for by differences in patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: For patients admitted to the ICU and ventilated on day 1, total duration of ventilation is primarily determined by admitting diagnosis and degree of physiologic derangement as measured by APS. An equation developed using multivariate regression techniques can accurately predict average duration of ventilation for groups of ICU patients, and we believe this equation will be useful for comparing ventilator practices between ICUs, controlling for patient differences in clinical trials of new therapies or weaning techniques, and as a quality improvement mechanism.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To analyze the determinants of an individual patient's duration of mechanical ventilation and assess interhospital variations for average durations of ventilation. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, inception, cohort study. SETTING: Forty-two ICUs at 40 US hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 5,915 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation on ICU day 1 selected from the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) III database of 17,440 admissions. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Utilizing APACHE III data collected on the 5,915 patients, multivariate regression analysis was performed on selected patients and disease characteristics to determine which variables were significantly associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation. An equation predicting duration of ventilation was then developed using the significant predictor variables and its accuracy was evaluated. Variables significantly associated with duration of ventilation included primary reason for ICU admission, day 1 acute physiology score (APS) of APACHE III, age, prior patient location and hospital length of stay, activity limits due to respiratory disease, serum albumin, respiratory rate, and PaO2/FIo2 measurements. Using an equation derived from these variables, predicted durations of ventilation were then calculated and compared with actual observed durations for each of the 42 ICUs. Average duration of ventilation for the 42 ICUs ranged from 2.6 to 7.9 days, but 60% of this variation was accounted for by differences in patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: For patients admitted to the ICU and ventilated on day 1, total duration of ventilation is primarily determined by admitting diagnosis and degree of physiologic derangement as measured by APS. An equation developed using multivariate regression techniques can accurately predict average duration of ventilation for groups of ICU patients, and we believe this equation will be useful for comparing ventilator practices between ICUs, controlling for patient differences in clinical trials of new therapies or weaning techniques, and as a quality improvement mechanism.
Authors: Sara L Douglas; Barbara J Daly; Carol Genet Kelley; Elizabeth O'Toole; Hugo Montenegro Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Ramoncito A David; Benjamin S Brooke; Kristine T Hanson; Philip P Goodney; Elizabeth A Genovese; Donald T Baril; Peter Gloviczki; Randall R DeMartino Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Martin D Rosenthal; Amir Y Kamel; Cameron M Rosenthal; Scott Brakenridge; Chasen A Croft; Frederick A Moore Journal: Nutr Clin Pract Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Kei Ouchi; Guruprasad D Jambaulikar; Samuel Hohmann; Naomi R George; Emily L Aaronson; Rebecca Sudore; Mara A Schonberg; James A Tulsky; Jeremiah D Schuur; Daniel J Pallin Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jehan W Alladina; Sean D Levy; Kathryn A Hibbert; James L Januzzi; R Scott Harris; Michael A Matthay; B Taylor Thompson; Ednan K Bajwa Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.598