Cough peak flow to predict the extubation outcome: Comparison between three cough stimulation methods.

0 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy Pub Date : 2020-11-20 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.29390/cjrt-2020-037
Christiane Melo Almeida, Agnaldo José Lopes, Fernando Silva Guimarães
{"title":"Cough peak flow to predict the extubation outcome: Comparison between three cough stimulation methods.","authors":"Christiane Melo Almeida,&nbsp;Agnaldo José Lopes,&nbsp;Fernando Silva Guimarães","doi":"10.29390/cjrt-2020-037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive value of three cough peak flow (CPF) maneuvers in predicting the extubation outcome in a cohort of mechanically ventilated subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-one mechanically ventilated subjects who succeeded in the spontaneous breathing trial were included. In a randomized order, CPF was stimulated and measured using three methods: voluntary command (V_CPF), tracheal saline instillation (S_CPF), and mechanical stimulation with a catheter (C_CPF). Additionally, CPF was measured 20 min after the extubation (PE_CPF). The diagnostic accuracy of the CPF methods in relation to the extubation outcome was measured using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ROC curve results were compared using the Hanley and McNeil method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three methods presented high accuracy in predicting the extubation outcome (V_CPF = 0.89, S_CPF = 0.93, and C_CPF = 0.90), without statistically significant differences between them (V_CPF vs. S_CPF, <i>p</i> = 0.14; V_CPF vs. C_CPF, <i>p</i> = 0.84; S_CPF vs. C_CPF, <i>p</i> = 0.13). The optimum cutoff values were V_CPF = 45 L/min, S_CPF = 60 L/min, and C_CPF = 55 L/min. PE_CPF also showed high accuracy in predicting the extubation outcome (AUC = 0.95; cutoff = 75 L/min).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In mechanically ventilated and cooperative subjects, there is no difference in the accuracy of CPF measured voluntarily, with stimulation using saline or by catheter stimulation in predicting the reintubation. CPF recording after endotracheal tube removal has high accuracy to predict the extubation outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":39373,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy","volume":"56 ","pages":"58-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cb/2c/cjrt-2020-037.PMC7678950.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2020-037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive value of three cough peak flow (CPF) maneuvers in predicting the extubation outcome in a cohort of mechanically ventilated subjects.

Methods: Eighty-one mechanically ventilated subjects who succeeded in the spontaneous breathing trial were included. In a randomized order, CPF was stimulated and measured using three methods: voluntary command (V_CPF), tracheal saline instillation (S_CPF), and mechanical stimulation with a catheter (C_CPF). Additionally, CPF was measured 20 min after the extubation (PE_CPF). The diagnostic accuracy of the CPF methods in relation to the extubation outcome was measured using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ROC curve results were compared using the Hanley and McNeil method.

Results: The three methods presented high accuracy in predicting the extubation outcome (V_CPF = 0.89, S_CPF = 0.93, and C_CPF = 0.90), without statistically significant differences between them (V_CPF vs. S_CPF, p = 0.14; V_CPF vs. C_CPF, p = 0.84; S_CPF vs. C_CPF, p = 0.13). The optimum cutoff values were V_CPF = 45 L/min, S_CPF = 60 L/min, and C_CPF = 55 L/min. PE_CPF also showed high accuracy in predicting the extubation outcome (AUC = 0.95; cutoff = 75 L/min).

Conclusions: In mechanically ventilated and cooperative subjects, there is no difference in the accuracy of CPF measured voluntarily, with stimulation using saline or by catheter stimulation in predicting the reintubation. CPF recording after endotracheal tube removal has high accuracy to predict the extubation outcome.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

咳嗽峰值流量预测拔管结果:三种咳嗽刺激方法的比较。
目的:本研究的目的是比较三种咳嗽峰值流量(CPF)在预测机械通气受试者拔管结果方面的预测价值。方法:81例自主呼吸试验成功的机械通气患者。按随机顺序,CPF刺激和测量采用三种方法:自愿命令(V_CPF),气管生理盐水灌注(S_CPF)和导管机械刺激(C_CPF)。此外,拔管后20分钟测量CPF (PE_CPF)。CPF方法与拔管结果的诊断准确性采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线进行测量。ROC曲线结果采用Hanley和McNeil法进行比较。结果:三种方法对拔管结果的预测准确率均较高(V_CPF = 0.89, S_CPF = 0.93, C_CPF = 0.90),三者间差异无统计学意义(V_CPF vs. S_CPF, p = 0.14;V_CPF vs. C_CPF, p = 0.84;S_CPF vs. C_CPF, p = 0.13)。最佳临界值为V_CPF = 45 L/min, S_CPF = 60 L/min, C_CPF = 55 L/min。PE_CPF在预测拔管结果方面也有较高的准确性(AUC = 0.95;截止= 75l /min)。结论:在机械通气和配合通气的受试者中,自愿测量CPF的准确性与生理盐水刺激或导管刺激预测再插管没有差异。拔管后记录CPF对预测拔管结果有较高的准确性。
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
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy Health Professions-Health Professions (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The CJRT is published four times a year and represents the interests of respiratory therapists nationally and internationally. The CJRT has been redesigned to act as an educational dissemination tool. The CJRT encourages submission of original articles, papers, commentaries, case studies, literature reviews and directed reading papers. Submissions can be sent to Rita Hansen.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信