We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Prediction of extubation failure in Intensive Care Unit: systematic review of parameters investigated.
Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 March
INTRODUCTION: Extubation failure (EF) refers to the inability to maintain spontaneous breathing after removal of endotracheal tube. The aim of this review is to identify the best parameter to predict EF in adult intensive care patients.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched for publications in PubMed (2000-2016). Studies of patients intubated and mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours were included and divided in groups basing on the extubation method. 2x2 tables were performed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and the predictive values only for those parameters investigated in more than three studies. Studies were divided in groups, basing on time required to define EF (<24 hours, <72 or >72 hours), and EF percentage was calculated for each group.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: On 443 potentially studies, 26 were included. Rapid Shallow Breathing Index (RSBI) and cough strength parameters were found in more than three studies. RSBI or cough strength parameter showed a sensitivity of 20-88.8% or 55.5-85.2%, a specificity of 68.5-94.8% or 24-49%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 39.5-66.6% or 24-49% and a negative predictive value of 98-82% or 89.5-96.4%, respectively. EF rate was 12.5%, 15.3% and 22% in patients evaluated within 24 hours, 72 hours and over 72 hours, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that all parameters used to predict EF have a low PPV. Therefore, the limitation of use of such predictive tests may prolong unnecessarily the intubation and increase the unfavorable outcome. A prospective study involving all variables could be useful to predict the EF in ICU.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched for publications in PubMed (2000-2016). Studies of patients intubated and mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours were included and divided in groups basing on the extubation method. 2x2 tables were performed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and the predictive values only for those parameters investigated in more than three studies. Studies were divided in groups, basing on time required to define EF (<24 hours, <72 or >72 hours), and EF percentage was calculated for each group.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: On 443 potentially studies, 26 were included. Rapid Shallow Breathing Index (RSBI) and cough strength parameters were found in more than three studies. RSBI or cough strength parameter showed a sensitivity of 20-88.8% or 55.5-85.2%, a specificity of 68.5-94.8% or 24-49%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 39.5-66.6% or 24-49% and a negative predictive value of 98-82% or 89.5-96.4%, respectively. EF rate was 12.5%, 15.3% and 22% in patients evaluated within 24 hours, 72 hours and over 72 hours, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that all parameters used to predict EF have a low PPV. Therefore, the limitation of use of such predictive tests may prolong unnecessarily the intubation and increase the unfavorable outcome. A prospective study involving all variables could be useful to predict the EF in ICU.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app