Prognostic Factors Associated With Extubation Failure in Acutely Brain-Injured Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Extubation failure in brain-injured patients is associated with increased morbidity. Our objective was to systematically review prognostic factors associated with extubation failure in acutely brain-injured adult patients receiving invasive ventilation in an ICU. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to January 31, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened citations and selected English-language cohort studies and randomized trials examining the association of prognostic factors with extubation failure. Studies were considered if they included greater than or equal to 80% adult patients with acute brain injury admitted to the ICU and mechanically ventilated for greater than or equal to 24 hours. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data on population, prognostic factors, extubation outcomes, and risk of bias (using the quality in prognostic factors tool). DATA SYNTHESIS: In the primary analysis, adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for each prognostic factor were pooled using random-effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The search identified 7,626 citations, of which 21 studies met selection criteria. Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of extubation failure with older age (aOR, 3.0 for upper vs lower tertile; 95% CI, 1.78-5.07) and longer duration of mechanical ventilation (aOR, 3.47 for upper vs lower tertile; 95% CI, 1.68-7.19). Presence of cough (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) and intact swallow (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.54) probably decreased risk of extubation failure (moderate certainty). Associations of other factors with extubation failure were informed by low or very low certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, duration of mechanical ventilation, and airway reflexes were associated with extubation failure in brain-injured patients with moderate certainty. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal application of these variables in clinical practice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".