Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25719512›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2015

Neuromuscular blockade improves first-attempt success for intubation in the intensive care unit. A propensity matched analysis.

Jarrod M Mosier, John C Sakles, Uwe Stolz, Cameron D Hypes, Harsharon Chopra, Josh Malo, John W Bloom

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Pharmacology of Physiologically Difficult Airway Management and Impact on Hemodynamics: A Review.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Evaluation of Point-of-care Ultrasound of Airway to Predict Difficult Laryngoscopy and Intubation in Intensive Care Unit Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Endotracheal intubation sedation in the intensive care unit.World journal of critical care medicine · 2022
    Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jarrod M MosierDepartments of 1 Medicine, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep, and.
John C Sakles
Uwe Stolz
Cameron D Hypes
Harsharon Chopra
Josh Malo
John W Bloom
University of Arizona · US

Funding

SHORT-TERM TRAINING STUDENTS IN HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOT35HL007479 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI GEOFFREY C GURTNER, JAMES Kuang-Jan LIAO · 1985 to 2026
$4.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS T35 HL007479NHLBI NIH HHS T35HL07479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThe use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) has been shown to be valuable in improving successful tracheal intubation in the operating room and emergency department. However, data on NMBA use in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients are lacking. Furthermore, there are no data on NMBA use with video laryngoscopy.

objectivesTo evaluate the effect of NMBA use on first-attempt success (FAS) with tracheal intubation in the ICU.

methodsSingle-center observational study of 709 consecutive patients intubated in the medical ICU of a university medical center from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014. Data were collected prospectively through a continuous quality improvement program on all patients intubated in the ICU over the study period. Data relating to patient demographics, intubation, and complications were analyzed. We used propensity score (propensity to use an NMBA) matching to generate 5,000 data sets of cases (failed first intubation attempts) matched to controls (successful first attempts) and conditional logistic regression to analyze the results. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThere were no significant differences in patient demographics, except median total difficult airway characteristics were higher in the non-NMBA group (2 vs. 1, P < 0.001). There were significant differences in the sedative used between groups and the operator level of training. More patients who were given NMBAs received etomidate (83 vs. 35%) and more patients in the non-NMBA group received ketamine (39 vs. 9%) (P < 0.001). The FAS for NMBA use was 80.9% (401/496) compared with 69.6% (117/168) for non-NMBA use (P = 0.003). The summary odds ratio for FAS when an NMBA was used from the propensity matched analyses was 2.37 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-4.88). In the subgroup of patients intubated with a video laryngoscope, propensity-adjusted odds of FAS with the use of an NMBA was 2.50 (1.43-4.37; P < 0.001). There were no differences in procedurally related complications between groups.

conclusionsAfter controlling for potential confounders, this propensity-adjusted analysis demonstrates improved odds of FAS at intubation in the ICU with the use of an NMBA. This improvement in FAS is seen even with the use of a video laryngoscope.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsAgedAirway ManagementFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNeuromuscular BlockadeProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsVideo Recordingairway managementintensive careintubationneuromuscular blockaderapid sequence intubation

Identifiers

PMID25719512
PMCPMC5466156
OpenAlexW2049972537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.