We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Preventive use of noninvasive ventilation after extubation: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Respiratory Care 2012 Februrary
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) after extubation in preventing post-extubation respiratory failure is still controversial.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled study involving patients on mechanical ventilation for > 48 hours who tolerated a 2-hour spontaneous breathing trial and were subsequently extubated. The patients were randomized to NIV or standard medical therapy. Re-intubation rate within 72 hours was the primary outcome measure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors for extubation failure.
RESULTS: We randomized 406 patients to either NIV (no. = 202) or standard medical therapy (no. = 204). The 2 groups had similar baseline clinical characteristics. There were no differences in extubation failure (13.2% in control and 14.9% in NIV), intensive care unit or hospital mortality. Cardiac failure was a more common cause of extubation failure in control than in NIV. There was no difference in rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) in extubation failure patients between control (80) and NIV (73). When using data from all patients, we found Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.20, P < .001), maximal inspiratory pressure (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, P = .03), and RSBI (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, P < .001) to be predictors of extubation failure. Abundant secretions were the most common reason (35.1%) for extubation failure identified by attending physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Preventive use of NIV after extubation in patients who passed spontaneous breathing trial did not show benefits in decreasing extubation failure rate or the mortality rate.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled study involving patients on mechanical ventilation for > 48 hours who tolerated a 2-hour spontaneous breathing trial and were subsequently extubated. The patients were randomized to NIV or standard medical therapy. Re-intubation rate within 72 hours was the primary outcome measure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors for extubation failure.
RESULTS: We randomized 406 patients to either NIV (no. = 202) or standard medical therapy (no. = 204). The 2 groups had similar baseline clinical characteristics. There were no differences in extubation failure (13.2% in control and 14.9% in NIV), intensive care unit or hospital mortality. Cardiac failure was a more common cause of extubation failure in control than in NIV. There was no difference in rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) in extubation failure patients between control (80) and NIV (73). When using data from all patients, we found Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.20, P < .001), maximal inspiratory pressure (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, P = .03), and RSBI (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, P < .001) to be predictors of extubation failure. Abundant secretions were the most common reason (35.1%) for extubation failure identified by attending physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Preventive use of NIV after extubation in patients who passed spontaneous breathing trial did not show benefits in decreasing extubation failure rate or the mortality rate.
Full text links
Related Resources
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