Respiratory muscle fatigue is considered a common cause of weaning failure but its detection is hampered by the lack of a satisfactory diagnostic test. Abdominal paradox has been proposed as a valuable clinical index of fatigue and thus its presence may lead to curtailment of weaning trials. However, sensitivity and specificity of this sign as a predictor of weaning outcome is unknown. We hypothesize that abnormal ribcage-abdominal (RC-Ab) motion is a common finding in the early stages of weaning and its presence does not inevitably imply an unsuccessful weaning outcome. We tested this hypothesis in patients undergoing a weaning trial: one group had a successful weaning outcome and were extubated (n = 10) and the other group failed the trial (n = 7). Normal RC-Ab motion was separately characterized in 17 healthy subjects. Employing a calibrated respiratory inductive Plethysmograph, quantitative assessment of asynchrony and paradox was obtained by computing several indices from series of breaths at fixed time periods using the Konno-Mead method of analysis. During the weaning trial, both groups of patients displayed significant increases in asynchrony and Ab paradox compared to normal values. As a group, patients who failed the trial displayed significantly greater asynchrony and paradox of the RC and Ab than patients with a successful outcome. However, there was considerable overlap between the individual patients in the 2 study groups. Only 3 indices, inspiratory RC paradox, the ratio of maximum compartmental amplitude to tidal volume (which takes into account both asynchrony and paradox), and breath-to-breath variability in RC and Ab contribution to tidal volume, appeared to discriminate between the 2 groups. In conclusion, abnormal ribcage-abdominal motion is a common finding in the early stages of weaning from mechanical ventilation and its presence does not inevitably imply weaning failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tobin et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: