Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 34710

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : June | Volume : 16 | Issue : 6 | Page : UC67 - UC71 Full Version

Comparison of Ultrasound-based Diaphragmatic Thickness Fraction (DTF) with Rapid Shallow Breathing Index and DTF alone for Predicting Successful Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomised Control Trial


Published: June 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/54807.16519
Mita, Zia Arshad, Ahsan K Siddiqui, Ramgopal Mourya, Gyan Prakash Singh, Haider Abbas

1. Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Additional Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 5. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 6. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Zia Arshad,
204, M Block, Buddha Hostel, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
E-mail: ziaarshad13@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: The timing for weaning from mechanical ventilator support is crucial because both early discontinuation and delayed weaning may lead to increased morbidity and mortality as well as high medical cost. Diaphragmatic Thickness Fraction (DTF), among the various ultrasound-based diaphragmatic measurements, can not only assess the readiness to wean but also predict the simple weaning. The Rapid Shallow Breathing Index (RSBI) or Yang Tobin index is a tool that is used in the weaning of mechanical ventilation. RSBI is the ratio of respiratory rate to tidal volume in litre (RR/VT).

Aim: To estimate success of weaning process by using the ultrasound-guided DTF% alone as a weaning predictor, and compare it with the index derived from the combination of both DTF% and RSBI.

Materials and Methods: This randomised control study was conducted on 100 patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) during one year, from October 2019 to September 2020. When the patients satisfied the weaning criteria, they were given Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT). After SBT the ultrasound was done and RSBI were calculated. Composite Index (CI) was derived by combining DTF% and RSBI. Patients were divided in two groups. In “group C” CI was used as weaning predictor, and in “group D” DTF% alone was taken as weaning predictor. Incidence of weaning failure was noted in each group. The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 19.0. Chi-square test, Student’s t-test, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, 2x2 tables were used.

Results: The DTF% value >44.0% was found to be 95.2% sensitive, and 96.2% specific based on the ROC curve. The proportion of cases requiring reintubation was significantly higher in group D (DTF%) compared to group C (CI) (30.0% vs. 12.0%). RSBI with DTF% had a better sensitivity and specificity than DTF% alone.

Conclusion: DTF% with RSBI is a much better predictor than DTF% alone. Sonography is subjective and has a long learning curve DTF% can be combined with RSBI to improve patient outcome.

Keywords

Diaphragm, Extubation, Inspiratory positive pressure, Tidal volume, Tracheal, Ultrasonography

Gradual withdrawal from mechanical ventilation is termed as weaning (1). Wrong timing of weaning and extubation can lead to weaning failure or prolonged mechanical ventilation. This can increase morbidity and mortality as well as treatment cost. Simple Weaning (SW) is defined as the process of weaning initiation to extubation at first SBT without any difficulty (2).

Dysfunction of diaphragm leads to prolongation of mechanical ventilation (3). There may be diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction due to prolonged mechanical ventilation. Diaphragmatic dysfunction may ensue even after short duration of mechanical ventilation which in turn may lead to difficulty in weaning (4). A study showed that diaphragmatic thickness may decrease by 6% or 7.5% per day in patients who are on mechanical ventilation (5).

The RSBI is described as the ratio of RR/VT, the value of RSBI >105 breaths/min/L indicate high probability of weaning failure while RSBI <105 breaths/min/L is the predictor of successful weaning (6).

Diaphragm ultrasound is a new tool in the armamentarium, which can detect the loss of diaphragm thickness during mechanical ventilation and a decrease in diaphragm thickness over time indicate atrophy. The right hemidiaphragm thickness can be easily and uniformly measured (7).

Low contractility of diaphragm is associated with rapid decrease in diaphragm thickness, whereas high diaphragm contractility is associated with increase in diaphragm thickness. Diaphragm thickness does not vary over time following extubating or in non ventilated patients. Patients have to be weaned off from the ventilator as early as possible but some of them found to be difficult to wean (8),(9). Diaphragm function is an important determinant of successful weaning and recovery from critical illness (10),(11). The value of diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF%) >36% is associated with successful weaning (12).

The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of composite score and DTF in predicting successful weaning. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of reintubation in patients undergoing weaning trial after fulfilling weaning criteria. The secondary outcomes measures were maximum Diaphragmatic thickness during full inspiration and the minimum thickness during inspiration (DTi/DTe).

Material and Methods

The randomised control trial was conducted in a tertiary level critical care unit at King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, from October 2019 to September 2020. The study was started after obtaining an Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) approval (IRB NO- ECR/262/Inst/UP/2013/RR-16).

Inclusion criteria: After written and informed consent from next to kin, total 100 adult patients aged ≥18 years, of either gender and admitted to critical care unit, on mechanical ventilation longer than 24 hours were included in this study using consecutive sampling method.

Exclusion criteria: Any patient with any pre-existing diaphragm disease, patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure, phrenic nerve palsy and any breach in skin in subcostal area thus preventing diaphragm ultrasound examinations were excluded from study.

Sample size estimation: For sample size calculation, the study by Samanta S et al., was taken (2). It was calculated by using the minimum sensitivity of among various diaphragm parameters used in prediction of simple weaning using the formula:

n=z2αSn (100-Sn) / pe2

Where=72%, the minimum sensitivity of diaphragm parameter (reference) ,p=50%, the expected minimum level of AUROC, e=0.2, error factor, Type I error (level of significance) ?=0.05, Power of study=80%, Then minimum sample size required to be n=39 per group. A total of 100 patients were aimed for the study, assuming 10% dropouts from the study.

It was ensured that before undergoing their first SBT the patients were afebrile, conscious oriented and alert, co-operative, with stable haemodynamic without or minimum vasopressor support and P/F ratio > 200 at FiO2 < 50% with Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) ≤ 5 cmH2O and RR of <30 breaths/minute. SBT was given in the form of pressure support ventilation of 8 cmH2O with PEEP of 5 cmH2O with Negative Pressure Trigger (NPT) of 2 cmH2O. All patients who successfully tolerated the Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) trial with NPT of 2 cmH20 were subsequently randomised in two groups (Group C= 50, Group D= 50), using computer generated random number. Patients in both groups were considered for extubation according to group allocation (Group C and D) as above. Any patient whose condition deteriorated with application of PSV at NPTs during SBT was excluded from study and managed as per attending consultant’s decision.

Measurement of diaphragm thickness: Diaphragm thickness measurements were taken at PSV at 2 cm H2O NPT. A minimum period of 15 to 20 minute was used to achieve steady-state of ventilation during PSV. After achieving steady-state ventilation, diaphragmatic measurements were taken. The right side of hemidiaphragms was accessed via the intercostal spaces. With the patient in the semi-upright position, a linear high frequency (7-18 MHz) transducer of SonoScape S30 ultrasound was used to measure diaphragm thickness at the zone of opposition. The diaphragm thickness was measured by putting the probe at the anterior axillary line in the longitudinal plane, between 7th and 9th intercostal space. The liver window was used to visualise diaphragm. The normal diaphragm was visualised between two echogenic lines, which represent the parietal pleura and the peritoneal membrane. The measurements of diaphragm thickness were noted during full inspiration and expiration. The DTF (%) was calculated as the difference between DTi and DTe divided by DTe × 100 by using following formula (13).

DTF (%) =DTi – Dte x 100 / DTe

DTF% diaphragm thickening fraction

DTi diaphragmatic thickness at end of inspiration

DTe diaphragmatic thickness at end of expiration

The ultrasounds were done by the intensivist. Average of three readings taken at least three different times each lasting 10-15 min was ensured to avoid intra-observer variability to less than 10% and establish reproducibility.

Rapid Shallow Breathing Index (RSBI): RSBI was calculated at PSV at 2 NPT cmH2O using formula i.e.

RSBI=respiratory rate / tidal volume (litre) (14).

Group D (DTF% Group): In this group, all patients were extubated according to diaphragmatic thickness fraction (DTF%). Any patients with DTF (%) ≥ 36% were extubated. While patients with DTF (%) < 36% were excluded from study and management was decided as per attending consultant.

Group C (Composite score Group): In this group, all patients were extubated according to CI including DTF% and RSBI. DTF% and RSBI were scored arbitrary to drive Composite Score, as shown in (Table/Fig 1).

All patients with composite score <5 were extubated. The patients had composite score of ≥5 were excluded from the study and managed as per attending consultant. If any patient in either group, showed decrease in consciousness, increased work of breathing (respiratory rate >35 breaths/min, use of assessor muscle, unstable haemodynamic) were considered for re-intubation. Re-intubation within 48 hours of extubation was considered as weaning failure. The independent intensivist who took decisions for re-intubation was unaware of group allocation. All the patients who could be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilator were monitored for the next 72 to 96 hrs. The patients who were haemodynamically stable, alert, oriented and without oxygen support, they were shifted to their respective ward/department.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS version 19.0 software was used for analysis. The values are represented in number (%) and mean±SD. Chi-square test, Student’s t-test, ROC curve, 2*2 tables were used.

Results

Total 136 patients of age 18-66 years were screened for eligibility for this study. Total 127 patients, fulfilling the inclusion criteria, were randomised in two groups. During weaning process 11 patients did not tolerate SBT. After group intervention, 16 patients were excluded from final analysis as they were extubated without Lung ultrasound (LUS). They had to be extubated as patients were off sedation and it was not justified to wait for intervention. There was not enough time to perform LUS. Among these 16 patients, one patient was self-extubated before intervention (Table/Fig 2).

The demographic profile and baseline clinical variable of the both groups were comparable. The mean age was 33.30±10.44 and 37.24±12.98 in group C and D, respectively (Table/Fig 3). The distribution of patients requiring either medical or surgical problems were found to be equal in both groups (Table/Fig 4).

Statistically significant difference was noted in values of DTi and DTF in both the groups (Table/Fig 5). The number of patients who required re-intubation within 48 hours, were significantly more in Group D, in comparison to Group C [15 (30%) vs 6 (12%), p-value:0.027] (Table/Fig 6).

The patients who required re-intubation, n=21, DTF%=39.66±3.68d] had significantly lower DTF% than who did not require re-intubation n=79, DTF%=76.36±19.20, (p-value<0.0001) (Table/Fig 7).

In the study population (n=100), the DTF% value >44% {based on ‘The Closest to (0, 1) Criteria’} showed 95.2% sensitivity, 96.2% specificity with area under ROC curve as 0.977 (Table/Fig 8). All patients who were weaned off in group C were transferred to ward in the next 3-4 days. While in group D, three patients stayed in ICU longer than 4 days after weaning.

Discussion

In the ICU, weaning a patient from mechanical ventilation is of great importance. Timely extubation of the patient depends upon precise assessment and intelligent prediction of patient’s respiratory strength which decreases the possibility of weaning failure and associated morbidity. Weaning failure is defined as either the failure of SBT or the need for re-intubation within 48 hours following extubation (15). USG has the advantage of being non-invasive diagnostic method, which is free of radiation and easily available bed side in ICUs. As the diaphragm is the key muscle of respiration, the diaphragmatic thickness measurements are used to assess the diaphragm function. Measurement of DTF% by ultrasound is an important tool for predicting the weaning success or failure. Diaphragmatic thickness can be measured by M or B mode but B mode is mainly used for diaphragmatic thickness (DT) measurement. Diaphragmatic thickness tends to reduce by 6% or 7.5% per day in mechanically ventilated patients. Patients with diaphragmatic dysfunction showed greater difficulty in weaning than patients without (16).

In the study, it was found that composite score (DTF% with RSBI) was a better predictor of successful weaning than DTF% alone. Previous studies considered DTF% as a weaning predictor and concluded with different cut-offs of DTF% (17). Ali ER et al., reported the cut off values for diaphragmatic ultrasound predicting successful weaning to be DTF >30 (18). Tanaka MA et al., reported the cut-off values for DTF associated with weaning failure - 25.9% on right diaphragm and, 23.1% on left side (19). None of the studies predicted a cut-off that could be used as weaning protocol. This is primarily because ultrasound is an operator dependent modality which differs person to person. RSBI gained most accuracy for predicting success of extubation among all non ultrasound ventilator weaning indices. This study planned to evaluate a composite score for predicting weaning in which RSBI and DTF% both were included.

A study conducted by Pirompanich P et al., compared composition of DTF% and RSBI with RSBI alone for weaning predictions. They concluded that composite of DTF% and RSBI is better than RSBI alone. They also reported that combination of right DTF% of more than or equal to 26% and RSBI less than or equal to 105 had an accuracy of 88.2%, sensitivity of 92.0%, specificity of 77.8%, positive predictive value of 92.0%, and negative predictive value of 77.8 (14).

In this study sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of composite score (DTF%+RSBI) were 100.0%, 88.6%, 54.5%, 100.0%. It was found that sensitivity and specificity of DTF% >44% for extubation success were 95.2% and 96.2%. Similarly, DiNino E et al., conducted a prospective study and they took DTf% as a weaning predictor. They found the combined sensitivity and specificity of ?tdi%≥30% for extubation success was 88% and 71%, respectively (15). The results of meta-analysis by Li C et al., reported sensitivities for diaphragm excursion (DE) and diaphragm thickness fraction (DTF) were 0.786 and 0.893, and specificities were 0.711 and 0.796, respectively (20). The study conducted by Gok F et al., to compare DTf and RSBI for successful weaning, found the cut-off values of 64 for RSBI, 27.5 for DTF, 1.3 cm for the DE, and 6.5 for the LUS scores (21).

Before the use of thoracic ultrasound in ICU, RSBI was the best clinical indicator for assessment of readiness to wean. But in the current scenario sonography provides the opportunity of real time assessment of diaphragm function. The study included both these parameters in consideration, and showed that the successful weaning rate was 84% when extubation was based on composite score, while it was 70% with DTF alone. The study concludes that when the ultrasonographic evaluation of diaphragm was accompanied by RSBI the chances of weaning failure were less.

Limitation(s)

It was a single centre study. The patients could not be studied with respect to the disease severity. It was not possible in this study as this would require a larger sample size. Independent trigger sensitivity for each patient group could not be individually tested. Inter-observer variability was also not taken into account.

Conclusion

Point-of-care ultrasound examination to assess diaphragm function is a clinically viable option and has good reproducibility. This can help clinicians in deciding when a patient is weaning-ready during critical care. DTF alone is a good predictor of successful weaning, but the sensitivity increases when combined with RSBI. Addition of RSBI to composite score results in better predictability for successful extubation and can assure the intensivist that the chances of re-intubation are much less. As the calculation of RSBI is simple and require no additional cost or expertise, it may be a good addition in armamentarium of an intensivist, who is going to weaning the mechanically ventilated patient. The study concluded that composite score would be much better predictor than DTf% alone for weaning from mechanical ventilation.

References

1.
Zein H, Baratloo A, Negida A, Safari S. Ventilator weaning and spontaneous breathing trials: An educational review. Emergency. 2016;4(2):65.
2.
Samanta S, Singh RK, Baronia AK, Poddar B, Azim A, Gurjar M. Diaphragm thickening fraction to predict weaning-A prospective exploratory study. Journal of Intensive Care. 2017;5(1):62. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Mostafa AA, Shaalan MA, Badr GA, Ibrahim AA. Diaphragmatic excursion assessment by ultrasound versus volume associated weaning parameters as a prediction in extubation in critically ill patients. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018;72(2):3873-78. [crossref]
4.
Theerawit P, Eksombatchai D, Sutherasan Y, Suwatanapongched T, Kiatboonsri C, Kiatboonsri S. Diaphragmatic parameters by ultrasonography for predicting weaning outcomes. BMC Pulmonary Medicine. 2018;18(1):175. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Turton P, ALAidarous S, Welters I. A narrative review of diaphragm ultrasound to predict weaning from mechanical ventilation: Where are we and where are we heading? The Ultrasound Journal. 2019;11(1):01-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Karthika M, Al Enezi FA, Pillai LV, Arabi YM. Rapid shallow breathing index. Ann Thorac Med. 2016;11:167-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Goligher EC, Fan E, Herridge MS, Murray A, Vorona S, Brace D, et al. Evolution of diaphragm thickness during mechanical ventilation. Impact of inspiratory effort. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2015;192(9):1080-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Peñuelas O, Frutos-Vivar F, Fernández C, Anzueto A, Epstein SK, Apezteguía C, et al. Ventila Group. Characteristics and outcomes of ventilated patients according to time to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184:430-37. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Boles JM, Bion J, Connors A, Herridge M, Marsh B, Melot C, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:1033-56. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Vassilakopoulos T, Zakynthinos S, Roussos C. The tension-time index and the frequency/tidal volume ratio are the major pathophysiologic determinants of weaning failure and success. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:378-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Adler D, Dupuis-Lozeron E, Richard JC, Janssens JP, Brochard L. Does inspiratory muscle dysfunction predict readmission after intensive care unit discharge? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190:347-50. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Ferrari G, De Filippi G, Elia F, Panero F, Volpicelli G, Aprà F. Diaphragm ultrasound as a new index of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation. Critical Ultrasound Journal. 2014;6(1):8. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Khan MT, Munawar K, Hussain SW, Qadeer A, Saeed ML, Shad ZS, et al. Comparing ultrasound-based diaphragmatic excursion with rapid shallow breathing index as a weaning predictor. Cureus. 2018;10(12). [crossref]
14.
Pirompanich P, Romsaiyut S. Use of diaphragm thickening fraction combined with rapid shallow breathing index for predicting success of weaning from mechanical ventilator in medical patients. J Intensive Care. 2018;2;6:6. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
DiNino E, Gartman EJ, Sethi JM, McCool FD. Diaphragm ultrasound as a predictor of successful extubation from mechanical ventilation. Thorax. 2014;69(5):423-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Theodore W, Marcy MD, Jenny L, Martino MD. Discontinuation of Mechanical Ventilation: Critical Care Secrets (Fifth Edition). Elsevier; 2013; page 63-68. [crossref]
17.
Saad MA, Nashed SW, El-Shaer AN, Elagamy AE, El derh MS. Ultrasound-assessed diaphragmatic dysfunction as a predictor of weaning outcome in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis in intensive care unit. Ain-Shams J Anesthesiol. 2022:14:18. [crossref]
18.
Ali ER, Mohamad AM. Diaphragm ultrasound as a new functional and morphological index of outcome, prognosis and discontinuation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients and evaluating the possible protective indices against VIDD. Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis. 2016;66(2):339-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcdt.2016.10.006. [crossref]
19.
Tanaka MA, Amador MAC, Delgado MLY, Franco GJ, Aguirre SJ, Camarena AG. Diaphragmatic thickness measurement as a predictive parameter for removal invasive mechanical ventilation in intensive care patients. Med Crit. 2017;31(4):190-97.
20.
Li C, Li X, Han H, Cui H, Wang G, Wang Z. Diaphragmatic ultrasonography for predicting ventilator weaning: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(22):e10968. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Gok F, Mercan A, Kilicaslan A, Sarkilar G, Yosunkaya A. Diaphragm and lung ultrasonography during weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients. Cureus. 2021;13(5):e15057. doi: 10.7759/cureus.15057. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/54807.16519

Date of Submission: Jan 07, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Feb 16, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Mar 31, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jan 12, 2022
• Manual Googling: Mar 30, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 25, 2022 (17%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com