Respiratory care · 2017
Risk Factors for Noninvasive Ventilation Failure in Critically Ill Subjects With Confirmed Influenza Infection.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rodríguez Alejandro, Ferri Cristina, Martin-Loeches Ignacio, Díaz Emili, Masclans Joan R, Gordo Federico, Sole-Violán Jordi, Bodí María, Avilés-Jurado Francesc X, Trefler Sandra, Magret Monica, Moreno Gerard, Reyes Luis F, Marin-Corral Judith, Yebenes Juan C, Esteban Andres, Anzueto Antonio, Aliberti Stefano, Restrepo Marcos I, Grupo Español de Trabajo Gripe A Grave (GETGAG)/Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) Working Group, 2009-2015 H1N1 SEMICYUC Working Group investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite wide use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in several clinical settings, the beneficial effects of NIV in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to influenza infection remain controversial. The aim of this study was to identify the profile of patients with risk factors for NIV failure using chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) analysis and to determine whether NIV failure is associated with ICU mortality.
METHODS: This work was a secondary analysis from prospective and observational multi-center analysis in critically ill subjects admitted to the ICU with ARF due to influenza infection requiring mechanical ventilation. Three groups of subjects were compared: (1) subjects who received NIV immediately after ICU admission for ARF and then failed (NIV failure group); (2) subjects who received NIV immediately after ICU admission for ARF and then succeeded (NIV success group); and (3) subjects who received invasive mechanical ventilation immediately after ICU admission for ARF (invasive mechanical ventilation group). Profiles of subjects with risk factors for NIV failure were obtained using CHAID analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1,898 subjects, 806 underwent NIV, and 56.8% of them failed. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, infiltrates in chest radiograph, and ICU mortality (38.4% vs 6.3%) were higher (P < .001) in the NIV failure than in the NIV success group. SOFA score was the variable most associated with NIV failure, and 2 cutoffs were determined. Subjects with SOFA ≥ 5 had a higher risk of NIV failure (odds ratio = 3.3, 95% CI 2.4-4.5). ICU mortality was higher in subjects with NIV failure (38.4%) compared with invasive mechanical ventilation subjects (31.3%, P = .018), and NIV failure was associated with increased ICU mortality (odds ratio = 11.4, 95% CI 6.5-20.1).
CONCLUSIONS: An automatic and non-subjective algorithm based on CHAID decision-tree analysis can help to define the profile of patients with different risks of NIV failure, which might be a promising tool to assist in clinical decision making to avoid the possible complications associated with NIV failure.
METHODS: This work was a secondary analysis from prospective and observational multi-center analysis in critically ill subjects admitted to the ICU with ARF due to influenza infection requiring mechanical ventilation. Three groups of subjects were compared: (1) subjects who received NIV immediately after ICU admission for ARF and then failed (NIV failure group); (2) subjects who received NIV immediately after ICU admission for ARF and then succeeded (NIV success group); and (3) subjects who received invasive mechanical ventilation immediately after ICU admission for ARF (invasive mechanical ventilation group). Profiles of subjects with risk factors for NIV failure were obtained using CHAID analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1,898 subjects, 806 underwent NIV, and 56.8% of them failed. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, infiltrates in chest radiograph, and ICU mortality (38.4% vs 6.3%) were higher (P < .001) in the NIV failure than in the NIV success group. SOFA score was the variable most associated with NIV failure, and 2 cutoffs were determined. Subjects with SOFA ≥ 5 had a higher risk of NIV failure (odds ratio = 3.3, 95% CI 2.4-4.5). ICU mortality was higher in subjects with NIV failure (38.4%) compared with invasive mechanical ventilation subjects (31.3%, P = .018), and NIV failure was associated with increased ICU mortality (odds ratio = 11.4, 95% CI 6.5-20.1).
CONCLUSIONS: An automatic and non-subjective algorithm based on CHAID decision-tree analysis can help to define the profile of patients with different risks of NIV failure, which might be a promising tool to assist in clinical decision making to avoid the possible complications associated with NIV failure.