How Mechanical Ventilation Measurement, Cutoff and Duration Affect Rapid Shallow Breathing Index Accuracy: A Randomized Trial

机械通气测量、截止值和持续时间如何影响快速浅呼吸指数的准确性:一项随机试验

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Decreased accuracy of the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) can stem from 1) the method used to obtain this index, 2) duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and 3) the established cutoff point. The objective was to evaluate the values of RSBI determined by three different methods, using distinct MV times and cutoff points. METHODS: This prospective study included 40 subjects. Before extubation, three different methods were employed to measure RSBI: pressure support ventilator (PSV) (PSV = 5 - 8 cm H(2)O; positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 5 cm H(2)O) (RSBI_MIN), automatic tube compensation (ATC) (PSV = 0, PEEP = 5 cm H(2)O, and 100% tube compensation) (RSBI_ATC), and disconnected MV (RSBI_SP). The results were analyzed according to the MV period (less than or over 72 h) and to the outcome of extubation (< 72 h, successful and failed; > 72 h successful and failed). The accuracy of each method was determined at different cutoff points (105, 78, and 50 cycles/min/L). RESULTS: The RSBI_MIN, RSBI_ATC, and RSBI_SP values in the group < 72 h were 38 ± 18, 45 ± 26 and 55 ± 22; in the group > 72 h, RSBI_SP value was higher than those of RSBI_ATC and RSBI_MIN (78 ± 29, 51 ± 19 and 39 ± 14) (P < 0.001). For patients with MV > 72 h who failed in removing MV, the RSBI_SP was higher (93 ± 28, 58 ± 18 and 41 ± 10) (P < 0.000), with greater accuracy at cutoff of 78. CONCLUSION: RSBI_SP associated with cutoff point < 78 cycles/min/L seems to be the best strategy to identify failed extubation in subjects with MV for over 72 h.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。