↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors and outcomes for airway failure versus non-airway failure in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study of 1514 extubation procedures

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Risk factors and outcomes for airway failure versus non-airway failure in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study of 1514 extubation procedures
Published in
Critical Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2150-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samir Jaber, Hervé Quintard, Raphael Cinotti, Karim Asehnoune, Jean-Michel Arnal, Christophe Guitton, Catherine Paugam-Burtz, Paer Abback, Armand Mekontso Dessap, Karim Lakhal, Sigismond Lasocki, Gaetan Plantefeve, Bernard Claud, Julien Pottecher, Philippe Corne, Carole Ichai, Zied Hajjej, Nicolas Molinari, Gerald Chanques, Laurent Papazian, Elie Azoulay, Audrey De Jong

Abstract

Patients liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation are at risk of extubation failure, including inability to breathe without a tracheal tube (airway failure) or without mechanical ventilation (non-airway failure). We sought to identify respective risk factors for airway failure and non-airway failure following extubation. The primary endpoint of this prospective, observational, multicenter study in 26 intensive care units was extubation failure, defined as need for reintubation within 48 h following extubation. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for airway failure and non-airway failure. Between 1 December 2013 and 1 May 2015, 1514 patients undergoing extubation were enrolled. The extubation-failure rate was 10.4% (157/1514), including 70/157 (45%) airway failures, 78/157 (50%) non-airway failures, and 9/157 (5%) mixed airway and non-airway failures. By multivariable analysis, risk factors for extubation failure were either common to airway failure and non-airway failure: intubation for coma (OR 4.979 (2.797-8.864), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.067 (1.217-3.510), P = 0.003, respectively, intubation for acute respiratory failure (OR 3.395 (1.877-6.138), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.067 (1.217-3.510), P = 0.007, respectively, absence of strong cough (OR 1.876 (1.047-3.362), P = 0.03 and OR 3.240 (1.786-5.879), P = 0.0001, respectively, or specific to each specific mechanism: female gender (OR 2.024 (1.187-3.450), P = 0.01), length of ventilation > 8 days (OR 1.956 (1.087-3.518), P = 0.025), copious secretions (OR 4.066 (2.268-7.292), P < 0.0001) were specific to airway failure, whereas non-obese status (OR 2.153 (1.052-4.408), P = 0.036) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 8 (OR 1.848 (1.100-3.105), P = 0.02) were specific to non-airway failure. Both airway failure and non-airway failure were associated with ICU mortality (20% and 22%, respectively, as compared to 6% in patients with extubation success, P < 0.0001). Specific risk factors have been identified, allowing us to distinguish between risk of airway failure and non-airway failure. The two conditions will be managed differently, both for prevention and curative strategies. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 02450669 . Registered on 21 May 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 56%
Unspecified 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 06 February 2019.
All research outputs
#645,622
of 13,327,609 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#654
of 4,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,775
of 266,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,327,609 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 266,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.