↓ Skip to main content

Physiological predictors of respiratory and cough assistance needs after extubation

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Physiological predictors of respiratory and cough assistance needs after extubation
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-018-0360-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Terzi, Frédéric Lofaso, Romain Masson, Pascal Beuret, Hervé Normand, Edith Dumanowski, Line Falaize, Bertrand Sauneuf, Cédric Daubin, Jennifer Brunet, Djillali Annane, Jean-Jacques Parienti, David Orlikowski

Abstract

Identifying patients at high risk of post-extubation acute respiratory failure requiring respiratory or mechanical cough assistance remains challenging. Here, our primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy of easily collected parameters obtained before or just after extubation in predicting the risk of post-extubation acute respiratory failure requiring, at best, noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) and/or mechanical cough assistance and, at worst, reintubation after extubation. We conducted a multicenter prospective, open-label, observational study from April 2012 through April 2015. Patients who passed a weaning test after at least 72 h of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (MV) were included. Just before extubation, spirometry and maximal pressures were measured by a technician. The results were not disclosed to the bedside physicians. Patients were followed until discharge or death. Among 3458 patients admitted to the ICU, 730 received endotracheal MV for longer than 72 h and were then extubated; among these, 130 were included. At inclusion, the 130 patients had mean ICU stay and endotracheal MV durations both equal to 11 ± 4.2 days. After extubation, 36 patients required curative NIV, 7 both curative NIV and mechanical cough assistance, and 8 only mechanical cough assistance; 6 patients, all of whom first received NIV, required reintubation within 48 h. The group that required NIV after extubation had a significantly higher proportion of patients with chronic respiratory disease (P = 0.015), longer endotracheal MV duration at inclusion, and lower Medical Research Council (MRC) score (P = 0.02, P = 0.01, and P = 0.004, respectively). By multivariate analysis, forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak cough expiratory flow (PCEF) were independently associated with (NIV) and/or mechanical cough assistance and/or reintubation after extubation. Areas under the ROC curves for pre-extubation PCEF and FVC were 0.71 and 0.76, respectively. In conclusion, FVC measured before extubation correlates closely with FVC after extubation and may serve as an objective predictor of post-extubation respiratory failure requiring NIV and/or mechanical cough assistance and/or reintubation in heterogeneous populations of medical ICU patients. ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT01564745.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Other 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 17 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,979,058
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#248
of 1,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,358
of 445,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 445,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.