The Predictive Applicability of Liberal vs Restrictive Intubation Criteria in Adult Patients With Suspected Inhalation Injury—A Retrospective Cohort Study

Author:

Chotalia Minesh1,Pirrone Christine2,Mangham Thomas1,Torlinska Barbara3,Mullhi Randeep1,England Kaye1,Torlinski Tomasz1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anaesthetics and Critical Care, West Midlands Burns Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK

2. Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Australia

3. Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham,, UK

Abstract

Abstract This study compares the ability of liberal vs restrictive intubation criteria to detect prolonged intubation and inhalation injury in burn patients with suspected inhalation injury. Emerging evidence suggests that using liberal criteria may lead to unnecessary intubation in some patients. A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with suspected inhalation injury admitted to intensive care at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham between April 2016 and July 2019. Liberal intubation criteria, as reflected in local guidelines, were compared to restrictive intubation criteria, as outlined in the American Burn Association guidelines. The number of patients displaying positive characteristics from either guideline was compared to the number of patients who had prolonged intubation (more than 48 hours) and inhalation injury. In detecting a need for prolonged intubation (n = 85), the liberal criteria had greater sensitivity (liberal = 0.98 [0.94–1.00] vs restrictive = 0.84 [0.75–0.93]; P = .013). However, the restrictive criteria had greater specificity (restrictive = 0.96 [0.89–1.00] vs liberal = 0.48 [0.29–0.67]; P < .001). In detecting inhalation injury (n = 72), the restrictive criteria were equally sensitive (restrictive = 0.94 [0.87–1.00] vs liberal = 0.98 [0.84–1.00]; P = .48) and had greater specificity (restrictive = 0.86 [0.72–1.00] vs liberal = 0.04 [0.00–0.13]; P < .001). In patients who met liberal but not restrictive criteria, 65% were extubated within 48 hours and 90% did not have inhalation injury. Liberal intubation criteria were more sensitive at detecting a need for prolonged intubation, while restrictive criteria were more specific. Most patients intubated based on liberal criteria alone were extubated within 48 hours. Restrictive criteria were highly sensitive and specific at detecting inhalation injury.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Rehabilitation,Emergency Medicine,Surgery

Reference30 articles.

1. A review of the international burn injury database (iBID) for England and Wales: descriptive analysis of burn injuries 2003–2011;Stylianou;BMJ Open,2015

2. Diagnosis and management of inhalation injury: an updated review;Walker;Crit Care,2015

3. Smoke inhalation injury;Gill;Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain,2015

4. Provider Manual 2011. ABLS Advisory Committee 2011–2012. American Burn Association.;Goodwin

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3