Rate of Change of Rapid Shallow Breathing Index and Extubation Outcome in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2023-09-26 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/9141441
Manjush Karthika, Farhan A Al Enezi, Lalitha V Pillai, Yaseen M Arabi
{"title":"Rate of Change of Rapid Shallow Breathing Index and Extubation Outcome in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.","authors":"Manjush Karthika,&nbsp;Farhan A Al Enezi,&nbsp;Lalitha V Pillai,&nbsp;Yaseen M Arabi","doi":"10.1155/2023/9141441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) has been widely used as a predictor of extubation outcome in mechanically ventilated patients. We hypothesize that the rate of change of RSBI between the beginning and end of a 120-minute spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) could be a better predictor of extubation outcome than a single RSBI measured at the end of SBT in mechanically ventilated patients. <i>Methodology</i>. In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 193 patients who met the inclusion criteria, of whom 33 patients were unable to tolerate a 120-minute SBT and were excluded from the study. The study population consisted of 160 patients, categorized into three subgroups: patients with normal lung (no reported history of respiratory diseases), patients with airway disease, and patients with parenchymal disease who completed 120 minutes of SBT on low levels of pressure support ventilation. RSBI was obtained from the ventilator display at the 5<sup>th</sup> and the 120<sup>th</sup> minutes of SBT. The rate of change of RSBI (RSBI 5-120) was calculated as (RSBI 2-RSBI 1)/RSBI 1 × 100. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for RSBI 5-120 and RSBI 120 in all patients and among the three subgroups (normal group, airway group, and parenchymal group) to compare the superiority of their best thresholds in predicting extubation failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RSBI 5-120 threshold for extubation failure in the entire patient group was 23% with an overall accuracy of 88% (AUC = 0.933, sensitivity = 91%, and specificity = 86%) and the threshold of RSBI 120 for extubation failure in the entire patient group was 70 breaths/min/L with an overall accuracy of 82% (AUC = 0.899, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 81%). In patients in the normal lung group, the threshold of RSBI 5-120 was 22%, with an overall accuracy of 89% (AUC = 0.892, sensitivity = 87.5%, and specificity = 90%), and the RSBI 120 threshold was 70 breaths/min/L, with an overall accuracy of 89% (AUC = 0.956, sensitivity = 88%, and specificity = 90%). The RSBI 5-120 threshold in patients with airway disease was 25% with an accuracy of 86% (AUC = 0.892, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 86%) and the threshold of RSBI 120 was 73 breaths/min/L with an accuracy of 83% (AUC = 0.874, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 82%). In patients in the parenchymal disease group, the threshold of RSBI 5-120 was 24%, with an accuracy of 90% (AUC = 0.966, sensitivity = 92%, and specificity = 89%) and RSBI 120 threshold was 71 breaths/min/L, which was 88% accurate (AUC = 0.893, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 89%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The rate of change of RSBI between the 5<sup>th</sup> and 120<sup>th</sup> minutes was moderately more accurate than the single value of RSBI measured at the 120<sup>th</sup> minute in predicting extubation outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":"2023 ","pages":"9141441"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10547562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9141441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) has been widely used as a predictor of extubation outcome in mechanically ventilated patients. We hypothesize that the rate of change of RSBI between the beginning and end of a 120-minute spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) could be a better predictor of extubation outcome than a single RSBI measured at the end of SBT in mechanically ventilated patients. Methodology. In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 193 patients who met the inclusion criteria, of whom 33 patients were unable to tolerate a 120-minute SBT and were excluded from the study. The study population consisted of 160 patients, categorized into three subgroups: patients with normal lung (no reported history of respiratory diseases), patients with airway disease, and patients with parenchymal disease who completed 120 minutes of SBT on low levels of pressure support ventilation. RSBI was obtained from the ventilator display at the 5th and the 120th minutes of SBT. The rate of change of RSBI (RSBI 5-120) was calculated as (RSBI 2-RSBI 1)/RSBI 1 × 100. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for RSBI 5-120 and RSBI 120 in all patients and among the three subgroups (normal group, airway group, and parenchymal group) to compare the superiority of their best thresholds in predicting extubation failure.

Results: The RSBI 5-120 threshold for extubation failure in the entire patient group was 23% with an overall accuracy of 88% (AUC = 0.933, sensitivity = 91%, and specificity = 86%) and the threshold of RSBI 120 for extubation failure in the entire patient group was 70 breaths/min/L with an overall accuracy of 82% (AUC = 0.899, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 81%). In patients in the normal lung group, the threshold of RSBI 5-120 was 22%, with an overall accuracy of 89% (AUC = 0.892, sensitivity = 87.5%, and specificity = 90%), and the RSBI 120 threshold was 70 breaths/min/L, with an overall accuracy of 89% (AUC = 0.956, sensitivity = 88%, and specificity = 90%). The RSBI 5-120 threshold in patients with airway disease was 25% with an accuracy of 86% (AUC = 0.892, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 86%) and the threshold of RSBI 120 was 73 breaths/min/L with an accuracy of 83% (AUC = 0.874, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 82%). In patients in the parenchymal disease group, the threshold of RSBI 5-120 was 24%, with an accuracy of 90% (AUC = 0.966, sensitivity = 92%, and specificity = 89%) and RSBI 120 threshold was 71 breaths/min/L, which was 88% accurate (AUC = 0.893, sensitivity = 85%, and specificity = 89%).

Conclusion: The rate of change of RSBI between the 5th and 120th minutes was moderately more accurate than the single value of RSBI measured at the 120th minute in predicting extubation outcome.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

机械通气患者快速浅呼吸指数和拔管结果的变化率。
背景:快速浅呼吸指数(RSBI)已被广泛用作机械通气患者拔管结果的预测指标。我们假设,在机械通气患者中,120分钟自主呼吸试验(SBT)开始和结束之间的RSBI变化率可能比SBT结束时测量的单一RSBI更好地预测拔管结果。方法论在这项前瞻性观察性研究中,我们招募了193名符合纳入标准的患者,其中33名患者无法忍受120分钟的SBT,因此被排除在研究之外。研究人群由160名患者组成,分为三个亚组:肺部正常(无呼吸道疾病史)的患者、气道疾病的患者和完成120 SBT在低水平压力下支持通气的分钟数。在SBT的第5分钟和第120分钟从呼吸机显示器获得RSBI。RSBI的变化率(RSBI 5-120)计算为(RSBI 2-RSBI 1)/RSBI 1 × 100.在所有患者和三个亚组(正常组、气道组和实质组)中绘制RSBI 5-120和RSBI 120的受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线,以比较其最佳阈值在预测拔管失败方面的优越性。结果:整个患者组拔管失败的RSBI 5-120阈值为23%,总体准确率为88%(AUC = 0.933,灵敏度 = 91%,特异性 = 86%),整个患者组中RSBI 120的拔管失败阈值为70次呼吸/min/L,总体准确率为82%(AUC = 0.899,灵敏度 = 85%,特异性 = 81%)。在正常肺组的患者中,RSBI 5-120的阈值为22%,总体准确率为89%(AUC = 0.892,灵敏度 = 87.5%,特异性 = 90%),RSBI 120阈值为70次呼吸/min/L,总体准确率为89%(AUC = 0.956,灵敏度 = 88%,特异性 = 90%)。呼吸道疾病患者的RSBI 5-120阈值为25%,准确率为86%(AUC = 0.892,灵敏度 = 85%,特异性 = 86%),RSBI 120的阈值为73次呼吸/分钟/L,准确率为83%(AUC = 0.874,灵敏度 = 85%,特异性 = 82%)。在实质性疾病组的患者中,RSBI 5-120的阈值为24%,准确率为90%(AUC = 0.966,灵敏度 = 92%,特异性 = 89%),RSBI 120阈值为71次呼吸/分钟/L,准确率为88%(AUC = 0.893,灵敏度 = 85%,特异性 = 结论:在预测拔管结果方面,第5分钟至第120分钟RSBI的变化率比第120分钟测量的单一RSBI值略准确。
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
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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