Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(4)
Exact(6)
Inclusion criteria: Random adults ICU patients (over 18 years) on invasive ventilation support for minimum two days.
The secondary clinical outcomes were first extubation success (no need for invasive ventilation support within 48 h of extubation), duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of PICU stay.
Six patients depended on invasive ventilation support preoperatively, and five of these had tracheostomies.
COPD aggravation, post-operative respiratory failure, and heart disease were the most frequent causes for the use of invasive ventilation support (Table 1) in both groups.
Six patients returned to invasive ventilation support because of abdominal sepsis (n = 2), worsening of congestive heart failure (n = 3), or pneumonia (n = 1).
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aggravation, postoperative acute respiratory failure (ARF), and heart disease were the most frequent causes for the use of invasive ventilation support in both groups.
Similar(54)
Lacking a physiological or biological marker that could distinguish between so-called responders and nonresponders to NIPPV, and the high rate of success in preventing the need for invasive ventilation, supports our recommendation to trial any infant in pending respiratory failure with NIPPV.
In addition, it has been reported that HHFNC is equivalent to more traditional non-invasive ventilation support, such as continuous or bi-level positive airway pressure (CPAP or BiPAP) [3, 4].
It has a modern well-equipped intensive care unit with facilities for invasive ventilation, hemodynamic support, and renal replacement therapy.
To study adults patients that needed more than 24 hours invasive mechanical ventilation support in an adult ICU in Brazil.
Prior to transplantation, 6 patients depended on invasive mechanical ventilation support and the others (40%) needed noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to maintain adequate gas exchange.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com