↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of extubation failure in newborns, infants and children: brief report of a prospective (blinded) cohort study at a tertiary care paediatric centre in India

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Prediction of extubation failure in newborns, infants and children: brief report of a prospective (blinded) cohort study at a tertiary care paediatric centre in India
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1607-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bedangshu Saikia, Nirmal Kumar, Vishnubhatla Sreenivas

Abstract

Extubation failure (EF), defined as need for re-intubation within 24-72 h, is multifactorial. Factors predicting EF in adults generally are not useful in children. To determine the factors associated with EF and to facilitate prediction of EF in mechanically ventilated infants and children less than 12 years of age. MATERIAL AND  Design Prospective cohort study. Setting PICU and NICU of a multispecialty tertiary care institute. Patients All consecutive newborns, infants and children, who remained on the ventilator for more than 12 h, were included. Patients with upper airway obstruction, neuromuscular disorders, complex anatomic malformations, accidental extubation, tracheostomy or death before extubation were excluded. Methods The pre-extubation clinical, laboratory and ventilatory parameters were collected for 92 cases over a one and half year period. The EF rate was calculated for each variable using STATA 9. All the treating physicians were blinded to the data collection procedure. Demographics were comparable between the extubation success and EF groups. Respiratory failure was the main cause requiring ventilation (46.74 %, 95 % CI 0.37-0.57) as well as EF (30.23 %, 95 % CI 0.08-0.23). 76.92 % (95 % CI 0.58-0.89) of patients that failed extubation had alterations in respiratory effort, 38.46 % (95 % CI 0.22-0.57) each had either poor or increased respiratory effort. Poor cough reflex (p = 0.001), thick endotracheal secretions (p = 0.02), failed spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) (p = 0.001) and higher rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) (p = 0.001) were found to be associated with EF. Paediatric EF is multifactorial. Increased or poor respiratory effort and failed SBT are potential factors in deciding re-intubation. Increased RSBI, poor cough reflex and thick.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Psychology 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,351,881
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,460
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,398
of 393,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#124
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.