The current study identifies neurologic status, as measured by the ability to complete four simple tasks, as another potent independent predictor of extubation outcome and confirms, as previously published, the importance of increased secretions and cough strength. There is synergistic interaction between increased secretions and cough strength, and between increased secretions and neurologic status, in predicting extubation failure. Overall, patients who were unable to complete all four tasks of cognitive function, had secretions of more than 2.5 ml/h and whose CPF was 60 l/min or less had a 100% rate of extubation failure, compared to a failure rate of 4.2% of those with none of these risks. The presence of any two of the three risk factors had 71.4% sensitivity and 81.1% specificity in predicting extubation failure. Patients who failed a trial of extubation were 3.8 times as likely to have any two risk factors compared to those who were successful. These simple quantitative measures of neurologic status, cough strength and amount of endotracheal secretions may provide a clinically useful approach to predicting extubation outcomes of patients who have passed.
The potent association of neurologic status and extubation failure found in this study differs from the findings of Coplin and colleagues [4]. These investigators examined extubation outcomes of brain-injured patients who met a number of clinical criteria including stable neurologic status and intracranial pressure less than 20 mmHg. The article did not state whether successful SBTs were required before a trial of extubation, so it is not clear whether the study examined purely extubation (as opposed to combined liberation/extubation) outcomes. Respiratory therapists assessed “airway care” using a number of subjective parameters (cough: vigorous, moderate, weak, none; gag: vigorous, moderate, weak, none; sputum: none, 1 pass, 2 passes, ≥3 passes; viscosity: watery, frothy, thick, tenacious; suctioning: frequency; sputum: clear, tan, yellow, green). Glasgow coma (GCS) and other scales were used to grade neurologic impairment. These investigators determined that more severe neurologic dysfunction was associated with longer delays of extubation. However, patients who met their “standard” weaning criteria and whose neurologic function was stable were safely extubated. Neither the absolute Glasgow score nor the aggregate airway score predicted extubation outcomes. However, a study by Namen and colleagues [7] examined predictors of successful extubation of patients with neurosurgical problems. Of the 98 patients who underwent at least one trial of extubation, the GCS score, f/Vt, PaO2:FIO2 ratio and minute ventilation were independent predictors of extubation outcomes.
Notwithstanding this discordance of results using the GCS, we postulate that the difference in our study findings from those of Coplin et al. is due largely to the differing methods used to measure neurologic status. The GCS, a widely used measure of consciousness, does not explicitly address a patient’s ability to perform tasks even if “alert” and may be too crude a measure of a patient’s ability to react to airway irritants and secretions. The method we used to assess cognitive function has heretofore only been used to assess “level of sedation [5]”, but the four simple tasks test abilities: (1) to understand simple commands (i.e. require integrity of receptive and integrative neurologic pathways) and (2) to perform motor skills as commanded (i.e. require integrity of descending, including cranial, motor pathways). After endotracheal extubation patients are asked to participate in their pulmonary toilet, which includes coughing, deep-breathing and expectorating. Perhaps, ability to perform the four tasks reflects more sensitively the level of neurologic function required to maintain a “competent airway.” Accordingly, it was not entirely unexpected that inability to follow commands correlated with poor cough strength. A strong voluntary cough requires intact cognitive function and strong respiratory muscles, which is independent of cognitive function (and independently predictive of outcomes as well). Irrespective, until further studies are performed to confirm our results, the four simple tasks should not be used exclusively, in lieu of other more validated measures of neurologic function, to make extubation decisions.
In several studies [2, 3, 4] there is a consistent association of cough and extubation outcomes, irrespective of the method used to measure cough strength. We suggest that the CPF provides a much more reproducible measure of cough strength (than subjective methods of quantification). While the endotracheal tube is in place, patients cannot close their glottis to complete a true cough. Accordingly, we must emphasize that, technically, we measured “glottis-free cough.” Thus the CPF might be considered a “huff” or, perhaps, a peak expiratory flow maneuver—which explains why values of CPF were significantly lower than expected for extubated coughs. Our current study confirms that the threshold value of 60 l/min or less is reasonably discriminative in predicting extubation failure.
In a previous study [2], the “white card test,” which integrates cough strength and secretions, was predictive of extubation outcomes. However, even in that study bedside observers’ subjective estimates of cough strength were superior. We recognized that the white card test has inherent limitations. For example, the white card test is often negative in patients with strong cough but little/no endotracheal secretions—a population expected to do well following extubation. The current study suggests that quantitative measurement of cough strength is superior to the white card test in predicting outcomes.
The quantity of endotracheal secretions also re-emerged as an independent predictor of extubation outcomes that synergistically interacted with both CPF and cognitive function. In our first study, secretions were measured subjectively (i.e. “large, moderate, small”) and semi-quantitatively (by frequency of endotracheal suctioning), both of which were associated with extubation outcomes. Coplin [4] likewise demonstrated that extubation failure was associated with more frequent endotracheal suctioning. In our second study [3] we sought to quantify secretions by connecting suction traps to the ventilator circuits of patients in the hours prior to extubation, but we did not ask respiratory therapists to follow a minimal frequency of endotracheal suctioning. In the current study, respiratory therapists were asked to suction at a minimal frequency of every hour and more frequently, if they felt it was needed, in the 2 h prior to extubation. Using this method, the quantity of suctioned secretions was predictive of extubation outcomes. There have heretofore been no published methods to standardize quantification of endotracheal secretions. Nonetheless, we were very surprised by the relatively small amount of secretions (i.e. 2.5 ml/h) that demarcated extubation success and failure. Insofar as the quantity of retrieved secretions is dependent upon the suctioning techniques of bedside personnel, this element of our extubation screen is most vulnerable to inter-operator variability and, therefore, these results should be generalized cautiously. Future studies may be helpful in creating more “standardized” methods of endotracheal suctioning and in determining whether the threshold of 2.5 ml/h is valid.
The presence of synergistic interaction between increased secretions and neurologic status or CPF in predicting extubation failure suggests one must be cautious in attempting extubation of patients with these risk factors. Moreover, patients with any two risk factors had a likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.8 for failing extubation. Unlike positive and negative predictive values, which are prevalence-dependent, the LR does not change with the prevalence of disease (in this case the frequency of extubation failure). The LR also aids in combining results from multiple screening tests and in calculating post-test odds/probabilities. For example, if the estimated probability (P) of extubation failure is 20% for a typical ICU patient, the pre-test odds of failure for that patient (P/1-P) are 0.25. If the patient has two risk factors for extubation failure, the post-test odds of failure (i.e. pre-test odds*LR) are 0.95. This converts to a post-test probability of failure (i.e. odds/1+odds) of 48.7%. In this case, the clinician should be wary of immediate extubation. A reasonable strategy might be to prolong the weaning process, treat remediable causes of cough weakness and excessive secretions, and re-assess daily the chances of extubation failure until the predictors become more favorable. If the current results are replicated in other centers and with larger study populations, it will be prudent, at a minimum, to caution against extubation of patients with all three risk factors.
The current study is unique in integrating simple reproducible measures of neurologic status, cough strength and secretions in predicting the extubation outcomes of patients who have passed a SBT. In spite of its overall positive findings, the study is limited by its relatively small sample size. This led to rather imprecise parameter estimates (with wide confidence intervals) in the subgroup analyses, especially of patients failing multiple tasks. Also, the volume of secretions measured was generally small and may not necessarily be reflective of patients in other centers who have passed SBTs. Furthermore, the cohort had very few patients with neuromuscular disease. CPFs in such patients may differ from general populations of critically ill patients [8] and thus these findings may not be generalizable to that population.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that neurologic function, voluntary CPF and magnitude of endotracheal secretions contribute to extubation outcomes. This study also offers a simple bedside test of neurologic function that predicts extubation outcomes. If these findings are replicated at other centers, these tools may provide clinicians with an inexpensive, objective method of assessing extubation readiness of such patients.