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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeong, Byeong-Ho, Lee, Kyeong Yoon, Nam, Jimyoung, Ko, Myeong Gyun, Na, Soo Jin, Suh, Gee Young, Jeon, Kyeongman
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