Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krinsley, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Barone, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krinsley, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Barone, J. E.
(Chest. 2005;128:560-566.)
© 2005 American College of Chest Physicians

The Drive to Survive*

Unplanned Extubation in the ICU

James S. Krinsley, MD, FCCP and James E. Barone, MD

* From the Critical Care Unit (Dr. Krinsley), Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT; and Department of Surgery (Dr. Barone), Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.

Correspondence to: James S. Krinsley, MD, Stamford Hospital, 190 West Broad St, Stamford, CT 06902; e-mail: jkrinsley{at}stamhealth.org

Study objectives: To assess the consequences of unplanned extubation (UE) in the ICU.

Design: Case-control study.

Setting: Fourteen-bed, medical-surgical ICU of a university-affiliated community teaching hospital.

Patients: One hundred patients who underwent UE compared to 200 control patients who underwent mechanical ventilation (MV) without UE between January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2004.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and results: Patients with UE had longer ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and longer duration of MV than did control subjects. Hospital mortality was 20% among UE and 35% among control patients (p = 0.011). Of the 100 patients with UE, reintubation within 48 h (UE R+) was required in 44 patients and no reintubation within 48 h (UE R–) was required in 56 patients. ICU and hospital LOS; duration of MV; rate of ICU-acquired infections; ICU pharmacy, laboratory and diagnostic imaging charges; and mortality were all much higher among UE R+ patients than among UE R– patients. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that age was the only predictor of the need for reintubation after UE and that age and the need for reintubation were the only predictors of mortality after UE.

Conclusions: UE was associated with increased hospital and ICU LOS but decreased mortality in this heterogeneous population of critically ill adult patients. These findings were entirely explained by the divergent outcomes of the UE R+ and UE R– groups. Patients with UE who did not require reintubation had remarkably good outcomes. It remains incumbent on ICU teams to institute protocols for regular identification of patients ready to be liberated from MV.

Key Words: ICU • intubation • mechanical ventilation • unplanned extubation






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Chest Physicians.