Discordances Between Factors Associated With Withholding Extubation and Extubation Failure After a Successful Spontaneous Breathing Trial*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify whether factors associated with withholding extubation in the ICU also predict the risk of extubation failure. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight medical-surgical ICUs in Toronto. PATIENTS: Adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, with a first successful spontaneous breathing trial within 28 days of initial ICU admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point had three mutually exclusive levels, including: 1) withholding extubation after a successful spontaneous breathing trial, 2) extubation failure within 48 hours, and 3) successful extubation. Among 9,910 patients, 38% of patients were not extubated within 24 hours of their first successful spontaneous breathing trial. A total of 12.9% of patients who were promptly extubated failed within the next 48 hours. Several discrepancies were evident in the association of factors with risk of withholding extubation and extubation failure. Specifically, both age and female sex were associated with withholding extubation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11; and odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26, respectively) but not a higher risk of failed extubation (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05; and odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11, respectively). Conversely, both acute cardiovascular conditions and intubation for hypoxemic respiratory failure were associated with a higher risk of failed extubation (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66; and odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.82, respectively) but not a higher odds of a withheld extubation attempt (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91; and odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93-1.23, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors showed discordance between the decision to withhold extubation and the risk of extubation failure. This discordance may lead to longer duration of mechanical ventilation or higher reintubation rates. Improving the decision-making behind extubation may help to reduce both exposure to invasive mechanical ventilation and extubation failure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".