2005
DOI: 10.1097/01.pcc.0000161119.05076.91
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extubation failure in pediatric intensive care incidence and outcomes

Abstract: In the present trial, 4.1% of mechanically ventilated children failed extubation. Pediatric intensive care unit patients with failed extubation have longer hospital, pediatric intensive care unit, and ventilator courses but are not at increased risk of death relative to nonfailed extubation patients.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

14
129
4
12

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(166 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
14
129
4
12
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, extubation failure occurred in nearly one-fifth of neonates, which is consistent with the range of 10-27% reported in other studies of children recovering from pediatric cardiac surgery [10][11][12][13][14][15]. The definition of extubation failure has varied in prior studies examining extubation failure in children with cardiac disease [10][11][12][13][14][15], with some defining extubation failure as the need for re-intubation within 24-48 hours while others have used 96 hours as their definition. Authors who have employed the latter definition [13][14][15] have asserted that extubation failure in patients with underlying cardiac disease can be slow to evolve and thus the time frame for extubation failure should be expanded beyond 48 hours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In our study, extubation failure occurred in nearly one-fifth of neonates, which is consistent with the range of 10-27% reported in other studies of children recovering from pediatric cardiac surgery [10][11][12][13][14][15]. The definition of extubation failure has varied in prior studies examining extubation failure in children with cardiac disease [10][11][12][13][14][15], with some defining extubation failure as the need for re-intubation within 24-48 hours while others have used 96 hours as their definition. Authors who have employed the latter definition [13][14][15] have asserted that extubation failure in patients with underlying cardiac disease can be slow to evolve and thus the time frame for extubation failure should be expanded beyond 48 hours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Extubation failure is often tumultuous in these patients, and can be associated with considerable postoperative morbidity and prolonged length of stay in the intensive care unit, especially in neonates [10]. To date, existing literature that has reported risk factors for extubation failure specific to patients recovering from pediatric cardiac surgery have been either large heterogeneous groups of children that ranged widely in age [11][12] or smaller studies focused on specific lesions [13][14][15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following reintubation, these neonates are then committed to another course of mechanical ventilation, with its inherent risks and exposures such as ventilator-associated infections, airway trauma, and the need for sedative infusions. In neonates and children undergoing cardiac surgery, extubation failure has been consistently associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality [3][4][5][6][7]. Prevention of this important complication is therefore an essential part of optimizing clinical outcomes in this patient population.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Premature extubation leading to cardiorespiratory compromise necessitates reintubation and reinstitution of mechanical ventilation and increases mortality and morbidity (1), whereas prolonged ventilatory support exposes the child to increased risk of nosocomial infection and lung injury (2). Extubation failure has been reported to occur in 4 to 10% of children (3,4), hence an accurate predictor of extubation outcome would be of significant clinical value (1).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%