Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology, Hospital Clínic, Institut D'investigació August Pi i Sunyer, Villarroel 170, 08025, Barcelona, Spain.
CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Crit Care. 2022 Jun 7;26(1):163. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04029-6.
Despite the benefits of mechanical ventilation, its use in critically ill patients is associated with complications and had led to the growth of noninvasive techniques. We assessed the effect of early intubation (first 8 h after vasopressor start) in septic shock patients, as compared to non-early intubated subjects (unexposed), regarding in-hospital mortality, intensive care and hospital length of stay.
This study involves secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective study. To adjust for baseline differences in potential confounders, propensity score matching was carried out. In-hospital mortality was analyzed in a time-to-event fashion, while length of stay was assessed as a median difference using bootstrapping.
A total of 735 patients (137 intubated in the first 8 h) were evaluated. Propensity score matching identified 78 pairs with similar severity and characteristics on admission. Intubation was used in all patients in the early intubation group and in 27 (35%) subjects beyond 8 h in the unexposed group. Mortality occurred in 35 (45%) and in 26 (33%) subjects in the early intubation and unexposed groups (hazard ratio 1.44 95% CI 0.86-2.39, p = 0.16). ICU and hospital length of stay were not different among groups [9 vs. 5 (95% CI 1 to 7) and 14 vs. 16 (95% CI - 7 to 8) days]. All sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.
An early approach to invasive mechanical ventilation did not improve outcomes in this matched cohort of patients. The limited number of patients included in these analyses out the total number included in the study may limit generalizability of these findings. Trial registration NCT02780466. Registered on May 19, 2016.
尽管机械通气有其益处,但在危重症患者中的应用与并发症有关,并导致了无创技术的发展。我们评估了早期插管(血管加压药开始后 8 小时内)对感染性休克患者的影响,并与未早期插管(未暴露)的患者进行比较,观察院内死亡率、重症监护和住院时间的差异。
本研究是一项多中心前瞻性研究的二次分析。为了调整潜在混杂因素的基线差异,我们进行了倾向评分匹配。采用时间事件分析评估院内死亡率,采用 bootstrapping 评估中位差异来评估住院时间。
共评估了 735 例患者(早期插管组 137 例,在 8 小时内插管)。倾向评分匹配确定了 78 对在入院时严重程度和特征相似的患者。在早期插管组的所有患者和未暴露组的 27 例(35%)患者中均使用了插管。早期插管组和未暴露组的死亡率分别为 35 例(45%)和 26 例(33%)(风险比 1.44,95%CI 0.86-2.39,p=0.16)。两组的 ICU 和住院时间无差异[9 天 vs. 5 天(95%CI 1-7)和 14 天 vs. 16 天(95%CI-7-8)]。所有敏感性分析均证实了我们研究结果的稳健性。
在本匹配队列患者中,早期进行有创机械通气并未改善预后。这些分析纳入的患者数量有限,可能限制了这些发现的普遍性。试验注册 NCT02780466。于 2016 年 5 月 19 日注册。