High-Risk Extubation Readiness Testing for Children With Cardiac Critical Illness.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chen Yun Goh, Herng Lee Tan, Yi-Jyun Ma, Apollo Bugarin Aguilan, Wen Cong Lee, Anuradha P Menon, Yee Hui Mok, Judith Ju-Ming Wong
{"title":"High-Risk Extubation Readiness Testing for Children With Cardiac Critical Illness.","authors":"Chen Yun Goh, Herng Lee Tan, Yi-Jyun Ma, Apollo Bugarin Aguilan, Wen Cong Lee, Anuradha P Menon, Yee Hui Mok, Judith Ju-Ming Wong","doi":"10.4187/respcare.11670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A protocolized extubation readiness test (ERT), including a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), is recommended for patients who are intubated. This quality-improvement project aimed to improve peri-extubation outcomes by using a high-risk ERT protocol in intubated cardiac patients in addition to a standard-risk protocol.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After baseline data collection, we implemented a standard-risk ERT protocol (pressure support plus PEEP), followed by a high-risk ERT protocol (PEEP alone) in cardiac subjects who were intubated. The primary outcome, a composite of extubation failure and rescue noninvasive respiratory support, was compared between phases. Ventilator duration and use of postextubation respiratory support were balancing measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 213 cardiac subjects who were intubated were studied, with extubation failure and rescue noninvasive respiratory support occurring in 10 of 213 (4.7%) and 8 of 213 (3.8%), respectively. We observed a reduction in the composite outcome among the 3 consecutive phases (5/29 [17.2%], 10/110 [9.1%] vs 3/74 [4.1%]; <i>P</i> = .10), but this did not reach statistical significance. In the logistic regression model when adjusting for admission type, the high-risk ERT protocol was associated with a significant reduction of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.091; <i>P</i> = .037), whereas the standard-risk ERT protocol was not (adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.15-1.53; <i>P</i> = .21). This was not accompanied by a longer ventilator duration (2.0 [1.0, 3.0], 2.0 [1.0-4.0], vs adjusted odds ratio 2.0 [95% [1.0-6.0]; <i>P</i> = .99) or an increased use of planned noninvasive respiratory support (10/29 [35.5%], 35/110 [31.8%], vs 25/74 [33.8%]; <i>P</i> > .99).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this quality-improvement project, a high-risk ERT protocol was implemented with improvement in peri-extubation outcomes among cardiac subjects.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":"1108-1115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349595/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.11670","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A protocolized extubation readiness test (ERT), including a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), is recommended for patients who are intubated. This quality-improvement project aimed to improve peri-extubation outcomes by using a high-risk ERT protocol in intubated cardiac patients in addition to a standard-risk protocol.

Methods: After baseline data collection, we implemented a standard-risk ERT protocol (pressure support plus PEEP), followed by a high-risk ERT protocol (PEEP alone) in cardiac subjects who were intubated. The primary outcome, a composite of extubation failure and rescue noninvasive respiratory support, was compared between phases. Ventilator duration and use of postextubation respiratory support were balancing measures.

Results: A total of 213 cardiac subjects who were intubated were studied, with extubation failure and rescue noninvasive respiratory support occurring in 10 of 213 (4.7%) and 8 of 213 (3.8%), respectively. We observed a reduction in the composite outcome among the 3 consecutive phases (5/29 [17.2%], 10/110 [9.1%] vs 3/74 [4.1%]; P = .10), but this did not reach statistical significance. In the logistic regression model when adjusting for admission type, the high-risk ERT protocol was associated with a significant reduction of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.091; P = .037), whereas the standard-risk ERT protocol was not (adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.15-1.53; P = .21). This was not accompanied by a longer ventilator duration (2.0 [1.0, 3.0], 2.0 [1.0-4.0], vs adjusted odds ratio 2.0 [95% [1.0-6.0]; P = .99) or an increased use of planned noninvasive respiratory support (10/29 [35.5%], 35/110 [31.8%], vs 25/74 [33.8%]; P > .99).

Conclusions: In this quality-improvement project, a high-risk ERT protocol was implemented with improvement in peri-extubation outcomes among cardiac subjects.

心脏病重症儿童的高风险 ERT。
背景:建议对插管患者进行规范的拔管准备试验(ERT),包括自主呼吸试验(SBT)。本质量改进项目旨在通过在标准风险方案的基础上对插管的心脏病患者使用高风险 ERT 方案来改善插管前的预后:在收集基线数据后,我们对插管的心脏病患者实施了标准风险 ERT 方案(压力支持加 PEEP),随后又实施了高风险 ERT 方案(仅 PEEP)。主要结果是拔管失败和抢救性无创呼吸支持的综合结果,在不同阶段之间进行了比较。呼吸机持续时间和拔管后呼吸支持的使用是平衡指标:共对 213 名插管的心脏病受试者进行了研究,213 人中有 10 人(4.7%)出现插管失败,8 人(3.8%)出现抢救性无创呼吸支持。我们观察到,在连续 3 个阶段中,综合结果有所下降(5/29 [17.2%]、10/110 [9.1%] vs 3/74 [4.1%];P = .10),但未达到统计学意义。在调整入院类型后的逻辑回归模型中,高风险 ERT 方案与综合结果的显著降低有关(调整后的几率比 0.20,95% CI 0.04-0.091;P = .037),而标准风险 ERT 方案与之无关(调整后的几率比 0.48,95% CI 0.15-1.53;P = .21)。这并不伴随呼吸机持续时间的延长(2.0 [1.0, 3.0], 2.0 [1.0, 4.0] vs 2.0 [1.0, 6.0] 天;P = .99):在这一质量改进项目中,高风险 ERT 方案的实施改善了心脏病患者在拔管前的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信