Trial reportCritical care medicine2011
Utilization patterns and patient outcomes associated with use of rescue therapies in acute lung injury.
Trial report in Critical care medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of second primary malignancies among treated and untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia using real-world data from the USA.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Review
- COVID-19-Associated dyslipidemia: Implications for mechanism of impaired resolution and novel therapeutic approaches.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020Article
- Effect of oleanolic acid for prevention of acute lung injury and apoptosis.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2019Article
- Article
- Salvianolic acid B attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in rats through inhibition of apoptosis, oxidative stress and inflammation.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: importance of low-tidal volume.Annals of translational medicine · 2016Article
- Comparison of Statistical Approaches for Dealing With Immortal Time Bias in Drug Effectiveness Studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2016Article
- Adjuvants to mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome.Intensive care medicine · 2016Review
- Long-term quality of life in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory hypoxaemia.Critical care (London, England) · 2012Observational
- Acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome in the injured patient.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the practice patterns and clinical outcomes associated with use of rescue therapies in patients with acute lung injury.
designSecondary analysis of multicentered, randomized, controlled trial data from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network.
settingIntensive care units of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network centers across the United States. PATIENTS: Subjects enrolled in six Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network trials occurring between 1996 and 2005.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOne hundred sixty-six of 2632 (6.3%) subjects received rescue therapy, defined as prone positioning (97 of 166 [58%]), inhaled vasodilators (47 of 166 [28%]), high-frequency ventilation (12 of 166 [7%]), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (10 of 166 [6%]). Use of inhaled vasodilators increased whereas use of prone position decreased over time (p for trend = 0.04 and 0.0013, respectively). Multivariate predictors for use of rescue therapy included age (odds ratio per 10 yrs and 95% confidence interval: 0.88; 0.78-0.99; p = .049), positive end-expiratory pressure (odds ratio per 5-cm H2O increase: 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.69; p = .019), Pao2/Fio2; odds ratio per 5-cm H2O increase: 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; p = .017), peak airway pressure (odds ratio per 5-cm H2O increase: 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.001-1.237; p = .047), and study order (odds ratio per subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network study: 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.41; p = .02). Cox proportional hazards analysis of propensity score-matched subjects showed no difference in survival for those who received rescue therapy vs. those who did not (hazard ratio for death after rescue therapy or index date, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.78; p = .72). No differences in survival were found between those who received prone positioning vs. inhaled vasodilators (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio for prone 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.10; p = .76).
conclusionsRescue therapies are utilized in younger patients with more severe oxygenation deficits. Patterns of rescue therapy utilization appear to be changing over time. Within the limits of an observational study design, we did not find evidence of a survival benefit with use of rescue therapies in acute lung injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.