Search

Background Unsuccessful extubation may be due to swallowing dysfunction that causes airway obstruction and impairs patients’ ability to cough and expectorate. Objective To determine whether swallowing assessment before extubation is helpful in predicting unsuccessful extubation due to airway secretions. Methods This prospective study included all patients intubated orotracheally for more than 6 days. Before extubation, 3 tests designed to assess (1) cervical, oral, labial, and lingual motility; (2) gag reflex; and (3) swallowing were used at the bedside. Causes of reintubation were identified, and their relationship to patients’ swallowing function before extubation was evaluated. Results Sixty-two patients were enrolled. Data on 55 patients reintubated for swallowing dysfunction were analyzed. Nine patients were reintubated because of obstruction related to upper airway secretions. Evaluation before extubation enabled prediction of 7 of those 9 unsuccessful extubations. Among the 23 patients with central nervous system disease, 3 of 4 unsuccessful extubations were predicted. According to a multivariate logistic regression model, motility and swallowing were independent predictors of unsuccessful extubation (area under receiver-operating-characteristic curve, 80%). The gag reflex was the only significant predictor of the ability to cough (area under curve, 73%) and excessive pulmonary secretion (area under curve, 67%). Swallowing was an independent predictor of the need for suctioning (area under curve, 78%). Conclusions Using simple bedside tests to evaluate swallowing before extubation is helpful when deciding whether to extubate patients who have been intubated for more than 6 days. Involvement of nurses in these decisions would improve patients’ management.

The objective of the study was to perform a descriptive approach of the current use of catecholamines by French physicians.A questionnaire of 12 questions with 4 items established by a group of French intensivists.French physicians from 433 departments working in the following practicing areas: intensive care unit (ICU), emergency department, and pre-hospital setting.Responding physicians were asked about the catecholamine that they would select in various clinical settings.The response rate was 82%. Of the responding physicians, 277 (78%) worked in an ICU, 28 (8%) in an emergency department, and 21 (6%) in a pre-hospital setting. Dobutamine was chosen for patients with cardiogenic shock by 90% of the respondents. Norepinephrine was the first choice agent as vasopressor in patients with septic shock in 52% of the cases. Dopamine was selected in a clinical setting requiring an optimization of regional blood flow, as in the concept of high-risk surgical patients. Dopexamine was used as a second or third choice agent to improve regional blood flow and cardiac output. The indications of epinephrine for anaphylactic shock and cardio-circulatory arrest were obvious for more than 90% of responding physicians.A lack of standardization appears in the use of catecholamines by French physicians, particularly for improvement of regional circulation and management of high-risk surgical patients. Guidelines that define the place of each catecholamine in these settings are required to improve the quality of prescription.

The effect of an intravenous (iv) injection of lidocaine with epinephrine was studied to determine if such a test dose would cause a reliably detectable increase in heart rate and systemic blood pressure in children anesthetized with halothane and nitrous oxide. The effect of the injection of atropine before the test dose on these parameters was also determined. Sixty-five children 1 month to 11 yr of age and weighing 3.9-35 kg were studied. The children were assigned to one of four groups, each of which was anesthetized with 1% halothane and 50% nitrous oxide. Group 1 (n = 20) received 10 micrograms/kg atropine followed 5 min later by an iv dose of 0.1 ml/kg 1% lidocaine with 1/200,000 epinephrine (0.5 micrograms/kg) to simulate an intravascularly administered epidural test dose. Group 2 (n = 21) was identical to group 1 but did not receive atropine prior to the simulated intravascular test dose. Groups 3 (n = 12) and 4 (n = 11) were identical to groups 1 and 2, but the simulated intravascular test dose did not contain epinephrine: group 3 received atropine prior to the test dose and group 4 did not. The simulated intravascular test dose increased heart rate in group 1 (with atropine) at each time period from 15 to 120 s, but only at 45 and 60 s in group 2 (without atropine). Following the iv test dose, 6 of 21 children in group 2 had an increase in heart rate of less than 10 beats/min, while only one child in group 1 had an increase in heart rate of less than 10 beats/min. Intravenous test doses that did not contain epinephrine (groups 3 and 4) had no effect on heart rate or blood pressure. Atropine, 10 micrograms/kg, improves the reliability of an epidural test dose in children anesthetized with halothane and nitrous oxide but does not ensure total reliability in detecting an intravascular injection.