Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 209


Home  | About Us | Editors | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit Article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 172-177

Usefulness of full outline of unresponsiveness score to predict extubation failure in intubated critically-ill patients: A pilot study

Department of Intensive Care Unit, King Hamad University Hospital, Busaiteen, Kingdom of Bahrain

Correspondence Address:
Anis Chaari
Department of Intensive Care Unit, King Hamad University Hospital, Block 228, P. O. Box: 24343, Busaiteen
Kingdom of Bahrain
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2229-5151.195401

Rights and Permissions

Objective: To assess the usefulness of the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score in predicting extubation failure in critically ill intubated patients admitted with disturbed level of conscious in comparison with the Glasgow coma scale (GCS). Patients and Methods: All intubated critically ill patients with a disturbed level of consciousness were assessed using both the FOUR score and the GCS. The FOUR score and the GCS were compared regarding their predictive value for successful extubation at 14 days after intubation as a primary outcome measure. The 28-day mortality and the neurological outcome at 3 months were used as secondary outcome measures. Results : Eighty-six patients were included in the study. Median age was 63 (50-77) years. Sex-ratio (M/F) was 1.46. On admission, median GCS was 7 (3-10) while median FOUR score was 8.5 (2.3-11). A GCS ≤ 7 predicted the extubation failure at 14 days after intubation with a sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity of 68.3%, whereas a FOUR score <10 predicted the same outcome with a sensitivity of 80.8% and a specificity of 81.7%. The areas under the curves was significantly higher with the FOUR score than with GCS (respectively 0.867 confidence interval [CI]: 95% [0790-0.944] and 0.832 CI: 95% [0.741-0.923]; P = 0.014). When calculated before extubation, FOUR score <12 predicted extubation failure with a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 85%, whereas a GCS <12 predicted the same outcome with a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 61.7%. Both scores had similar accuracy for predicting 28-day mortality and neurological outcome at 3 months. Conclusion: The FOUR score is superior to the GCS for the prediction of successful extubation of intubated critically ill patients.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded165    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal