Cargando…
Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome
BACKGROUND: Although the WIND (Weaning according to a New Definition) classification based on duration of ventilation after the first separation attempt has been proposed, this new classification has not been tested in clinical practice. The objective of this cohort study was to evaluate the clinica...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6265356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30498971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0461-z |
_version_ | 1783375625515433984 |
---|---|
author | Jeong, Byeong-Ho Lee, Kyeong Yoon Nam, Jimyoung Ko, Myeong Gyun Na, Soo Jin Suh, Gee Young Jeon, Kyeongman |
author_facet | Jeong, Byeong-Ho Lee, Kyeong Yoon Nam, Jimyoung Ko, Myeong Gyun Na, Soo Jin Suh, Gee Young Jeon, Kyeongman |
author_sort | Jeong, Byeong-Ho |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although the WIND (Weaning according to a New Definition) classification based on duration of ventilation after the first separation attempt has been proposed, this new classification has not been tested in clinical practice. The objective of this cohort study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of WIND classification and its association with hospital mortality compared to the International Consensus Conference (ICC) classification. METHODS: All consecutive medical ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h between July 2010 and September 2013 were prospectively registered. Patients were classified into simple, difficult, or prolonged weaning group according to ICC classification and Groups 1, 2, 3, or no weaning (NW) according to WIND classification. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 1600 patients were eligible. These patients were classified by the WIND classification as follows: Group NW = 580 (36.3%), Group 1 = 617 (38.6%), Group 2 = 186 (11.6%), and Group 3 = 217 (13.6%). However, only 735 (45.9%) patients were classified by ICC classification as follows: simple weaning = 503 (68.4%), difficult weaning = 145 (19.7%), and prolonged weaning = 87 (11.8%). Clinical outcomes were significantly different across weaning groups by ICC classification and WIND classification. However, there were no statistical differences in successful weaning rate (96.6% vs. 95.2%) or hospital mortality (22.5% vs. 25.5%) between simple and difficult weaning groups by the ICC. Conversely, there were statistically significant differences in successful weaning rate (98.5% vs. 76.9%) and hospital mortality (21.2% vs. 33.9%) between Group 1 and Group 2 by WIND. CONCLUSIONS: The WIND classification could be a better tool for predicting weaning outcomes than the ICC classification. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0461-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6265356 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62653562018-12-18 Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome Jeong, Byeong-Ho Lee, Kyeong Yoon Nam, Jimyoung Ko, Myeong Gyun Na, Soo Jin Suh, Gee Young Jeon, Kyeongman Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Although the WIND (Weaning according to a New Definition) classification based on duration of ventilation after the first separation attempt has been proposed, this new classification has not been tested in clinical practice. The objective of this cohort study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of WIND classification and its association with hospital mortality compared to the International Consensus Conference (ICC) classification. METHODS: All consecutive medical ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h between July 2010 and September 2013 were prospectively registered. Patients were classified into simple, difficult, or prolonged weaning group according to ICC classification and Groups 1, 2, 3, or no weaning (NW) according to WIND classification. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 1600 patients were eligible. These patients were classified by the WIND classification as follows: Group NW = 580 (36.3%), Group 1 = 617 (38.6%), Group 2 = 186 (11.6%), and Group 3 = 217 (13.6%). However, only 735 (45.9%) patients were classified by ICC classification as follows: simple weaning = 503 (68.4%), difficult weaning = 145 (19.7%), and prolonged weaning = 87 (11.8%). Clinical outcomes were significantly different across weaning groups by ICC classification and WIND classification. However, there were no statistical differences in successful weaning rate (96.6% vs. 95.2%) or hospital mortality (22.5% vs. 25.5%) between simple and difficult weaning groups by the ICC. Conversely, there were statistically significant differences in successful weaning rate (98.5% vs. 76.9%) and hospital mortality (21.2% vs. 33.9%) between Group 1 and Group 2 by WIND. CONCLUSIONS: The WIND classification could be a better tool for predicting weaning outcomes than the ICC classification. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0461-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6265356/ /pubmed/30498971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0461-z Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Jeong, Byeong-Ho Lee, Kyeong Yoon Nam, Jimyoung Ko, Myeong Gyun Na, Soo Jin Suh, Gee Young Jeon, Kyeongman Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome |
title | Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome |
title_full | Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome |
title_fullStr | Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome |
title_short | Validation of a new WIND classification compared to ICC classification for weaning outcome |
title_sort | validation of a new wind classification compared to icc classification for weaning outcome |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6265356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30498971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0461-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jeongbyeongho validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome AT leekyeongyoon validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome AT namjimyoung validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome AT komyeonggyun validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome AT nasoojin validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome AT suhgeeyoung validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome AT jeonkyeongman validationofanewwindclassificationcomparedtoiccclassificationforweaningoutcome |