Springer Nature
Browse
13613_2019_565_MOESM1_ESM.docx (48.59 kB)

MOESM1 of Electrical impedance tomography during spontaneous breathing trials and after extubation in critically ill patients at high risk for extubation failure: a multicenter observational study

Download (48.59 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2019-08-14, 03:58 authored by Federico Longhini, Jessica Maugeri, Cristina Andreoni, Chiara Ronco, Andrea Bruni, Eugenio Garofalo, Corrado Pelaia, Camilla Cavicchi, Sergio Pintaudi, Paolo Navalesi
Additional file 1: Table S1. Criteria considered in the study protocol. Criteria for increased risk for post-extubation respiratory failure, SBT eligibility, SBT failure, post-extubation respiratory failure and reintubation are presented from left to right. Table S2. Receiving Operating Curves of ∆Vt%, ∆EELI, inhomogeneity index, RR/Vt and PaO2/FiO2 for SBT failure prediction. The Youden index, area under the curve (AUC), sensibility, specificity, positive (LR +) and negative (LR −) likelihood ratios are presented for EIT data, RR/Vt and PaO2/FiO2 for SBT failure prediction. Table S3. ABGs and RR/Vt in patients with extubation success and failure. Data are separately presented for patients succeeding and failing extubation. Table S4. Receiving Operating Curves of ∆Vt%, ∆EELI, inhomogeneity index, RR/Vt and PaO2/FiO2 for extubation failure prediction. The Youden index, area under the curve (AUC), sensibility, specificity, positive (LR +) and negative (LR −) likelihood ratios are presented for EIT data, RR/Vt and PaO2/FiO2 for extubation failure prediction. Table S5. EIT data in patients with “rescue” NIV success and failure. EIT parameters are separately presented for patients succeeding and failing rescue CPAP/NIV. Table S6. EIT data in patients with respiratory and non-respiratory reasons of extubation failure. EIT parameters are separately presented for patients with extubation failure secondary to respiratory and non-respiratory causes. Figure S1. Flow diagram of screened and enrolled patients. The flow of patients screened for the study (n = 1555), assessed for eligibility (n = 145), excluded (with the reason of exclusion) (n = 65), enrolled in the study (n = 80), and analyzed (n = 78) is shown.

History