{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03524229074889868, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030837004405286344, 'mean_word_length': 4.868217054263566, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Use of the Change in Weaning Parameters as a Predictor of Successful Re-Extubation.

OBJECTIVE
Weaning parameters are well studied in patients undergoing first time extubation. Fewer data exists to guide re-extubation of patients who failed their first extubation attempt. It is reasonable to postulate that improved weaning parameters between the first and second extubation attempt would lead to improved rates of re-extubation success. To investigate, we studied a cohort of patients who failed their first extubation attempt and underwent a second attempt at extubation. We hypothesized that improvement in weaning parameters between the first and the second extubation attempt is associated with successful reextubation.


INTERVENTIONS
Rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), vital capacity (VC), and the blood partial pressure of CO2 (PaCO2) were measured and recorded in the medical record prior to extubation along with demographic information. We examined the relationship between the change in extubation and re-extubation weaning parameters and re-extubation success.


MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
A total of 1283 adult patients were included. All weaning parameters obtained prior to re-extubation differed between those who were successful and those who required a second reintubation. Those with reextubation success had slightly lower PaCO2 values (39.5 ± 7.4 mmHg vs. 41.6 ± 9.1 mmHg, p = 0.0045) and about 13% higher vital capacity volumes (1021 ± 410 mL vs. 907 ± 396 mL, p = 0.0093). Lower values for RSBI (53 ± 32 breaths/min/L vs. 69 ± 42 breaths/min/L, p < 0.001) and MIP (-41 ± 12 cmH2O vs. -38 ± 13 cm H2O), p = 0.0225) were seen in those with re-extubation success. Multivariable logistical regression demonstrates lack of independent associated between the change in parameters between the 2 attempts and re-extubation success.


CONCLUSIONS
The relationship between the changes in extubation parameters through successive attempts is driven primarily by the value obtained immediately prior to re-extubation. These findings do not support waiting for an improvement in extubation parameters to extubate patients who failed a first attempt at extubation if extubation parameters are compatible with success.