Bedside Incentive Spirometry Predicts Risk of Pulmonary Complication in Patients with Rib Fractures
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
This retrospective chart review demonstrates the relationship between bedside incentive spirometry (ICS) volumes and risk of pulmonary complications. Two hundred patients admitted for rib fractures between April and October 2016 were reviewed. The inclusion criteria were age 18–98 years, diagnosis of rib or sternal fractures, and no procedures requiring postoperative intubation within 48 hours of admission. The exclusion criteria were intubation before arrival, unable to participate in ICS, or previous tracheostomy. ICS volumes recorded in daily progress notes were collected. Of 200 charts reviewed, 154 met the inclusion criteria. In all, 25 endured at least one pulmonary complication. The average ICS on admission was 1355 cc. Patients who did not experience a complication had significantly higher admission ICS volumes than those who did (1441 ± 660 cc vs 920 ± 451 cc, P = 0.0003). They also achieved higher volumes at discharge (1705 ± 662 cc vs 1211 ± 453 cc, P = 0.006). The groups had similar demographics. An admission ICS volume <1 L was associated with 3.33 relative risk of pulmonary complication. Lower volumes were also associated with discharge to nonhome locations. Bedside ICS is a useful tool to identify patients at risk of pulmonary complications from rib fractures. Patients with admission ICS volume <1 L carry a higher risk of complication.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Bedside Incentive Spirometry Predicts Risk of Pulmonary Complication in Patients with Rib Fractures
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2019
- Éditeur
- SAGE Publications
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.