Evaluating the Sum of Eye and Motor Components of the Glasgow Coma Score As a Predictor of Extubation Failure in Patients With Acute Brain Injury.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006283
Shaurya Taran, Bastien Perrot, Federico Angriman, Raphael Cinotti
{"title":"Evaluating the Sum of Eye and Motor Components of the Glasgow Coma Score As a Predictor of Extubation Failure in Patients With Acute Brain Injury.","authors":"Shaurya Taran, Bastien Perrot, Federico Angriman, Raphael Cinotti","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the association between the pre-extubation sum of eye and motor components of the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS-EM) and odds of extubation failure in patients with acute brain injury being liberated from mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter observational study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03400904).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Sixty-three hospital sites worldwide, with patient recruitment from January 2018 to November 2020.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>One thousand one hundred fifty-two critically ill patients with acute brain injury, with a median age of 54 years, of whom 783 (68.0%) were male, 559 (48.5%) had traumatic brain injury, and 905 (78.6%) had a GCS-EM greater than 8 before extubation (scores range from 2 to 10).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>GCS-EM was computed in intubated patients on the day of extubation. The main outcome was extubation failure, defined as unplanned reintubation within 5 days of extubation. Analyses used multilevel logistic regression with adjustment for patient characteristics and a random intercept for hospital site. In the primary analysis, GCS-EM was not associated with extubation failure (odds ratio, 1.07 per additional point; 95% CI, 0.87-1.31). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses that: 1) used different adjustment covariates, 2) included a verbal estimate to derive an overall GCS, 3) accounted for missing data, 4) considered a 2-day time interval to define extubation failure, 5) accounted for competing risks, and 6) used a propensity score-based model. There was no association between GCS-EM and extubation outcome in subgroups defined by brain injury diagnosis or age.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this large, contemporary, multicenter cohort of patients with acute brain injury, we found no association between the GCS-EM and odds of extubation failure. However, few patients had a pre-extubation GCS-EM less than or equal to 8, and the possibility of a true prognostic association in patients with low scores is not excluded.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006283","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the association between the pre-extubation sum of eye and motor components of the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS-EM) and odds of extubation failure in patients with acute brain injury being liberated from mechanical ventilation.

Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter observational study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03400904).

Setting: Sixty-three hospital sites worldwide, with patient recruitment from January 2018 to November 2020.

Patients: One thousand one hundred fifty-two critically ill patients with acute brain injury, with a median age of 54 years, of whom 783 (68.0%) were male, 559 (48.5%) had traumatic brain injury, and 905 (78.6%) had a GCS-EM greater than 8 before extubation (scores range from 2 to 10).

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: GCS-EM was computed in intubated patients on the day of extubation. The main outcome was extubation failure, defined as unplanned reintubation within 5 days of extubation. Analyses used multilevel logistic regression with adjustment for patient characteristics and a random intercept for hospital site. In the primary analysis, GCS-EM was not associated with extubation failure (odds ratio, 1.07 per additional point; 95% CI, 0.87-1.31). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses that: 1) used different adjustment covariates, 2) included a verbal estimate to derive an overall GCS, 3) accounted for missing data, 4) considered a 2-day time interval to define extubation failure, 5) accounted for competing risks, and 6) used a propensity score-based model. There was no association between GCS-EM and extubation outcome in subgroups defined by brain injury diagnosis or age.

Conclusions: In this large, contemporary, multicenter cohort of patients with acute brain injury, we found no association between the GCS-EM and odds of extubation failure. However, few patients had a pre-extubation GCS-EM less than or equal to 8, and the possibility of a true prognostic association in patients with low scores is not excluded.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估格拉斯哥昏迷评分中眼部和运动部分的总和作为急性脑损伤患者拔管失败的预测指标。
目的评估急性脑损伤患者拔管前格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS-EM)中眼部和运动部分的总和与机械通气拔管失败几率之间的关系:一项前瞻性多中心观察研究的二次分析(ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符 NCT03400904):全球63家医院,患者招募时间为2018年1月至2020年11月:1152名急性脑损伤重症患者,中位年龄为54岁,其中783人(68.0%)为男性,559人(48.5%)为创伤性脑损伤,905人(78.6%)在拔管前GCS-EM大于8(评分范围为2至10).干预措施:无:无干预措施:在拔管当天计算插管患者的 GCS-EM。主要结果是拔管失败,定义为拔管后 5 天内计划外再次插管。分析采用多层次逻辑回归,对患者特征进行了调整,并对医院地点进行了随机截距。在主要分析中,GCS-EM 与拔管失败无关(几率比,每增加一个点为 1.07;95% CI,0.87-1.31)。以下敏感性分析的结果一致:1)使用了不同的调整协变量;2)纳入了口头估计值以得出总体 GCS;3)考虑了缺失数据;4)考虑了 2 天的时间间隔来定义拔管失败;5)考虑了竞争风险;6)使用了基于倾向评分的模型。在根据脑损伤诊断或年龄定义的亚组中,GCS-EM与拔管结果之间没有关联:在这个大型、现代、多中心急性脑损伤患者队列中,我们发现 GCS-EM 与拔管失败几率之间没有关联。但是,拔管前 GCS-EM 小于或等于 8 分的患者很少,因此不排除低分患者的预后确实存在关联的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
期刊最新文献
Time Controlled Adaptive Ventilation/Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Can be Used Effectively in Patients With or at High Risk of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome "Time is the Soul of the World" Pythagoras. Caution-Do Not Attempt This at Home. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Should Not Routinely Be Used in Patients With or at Risk of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Outside of a Clinical Trial. Resuscitation for Donation After Brain Death: Respecting Autonomy and Maximizing Utility. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Organ Preservation After Death Risks Public Trust and Requires Explicit Consent. Two Weeks Versus One Week of Maximal Patient-Intensivist Continuity for Adult Medical Intensive Care Patients: A Two-Center Target Trial Emulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1