Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879463›Full record

Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2015

Paracetamol therapy and outcome of critically ill patients: a multicenter retrospective observational study.

Satoshi Suzuki, Glenn M Eastwood, Michael Bailey, David Gattas, Peter Kruger, Manoj Saxena, John D Santamaria, Rinaldo Bellomo

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Satoshi SuzukiAustin Hospital, 145 Studley Rd, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. suzuki-s@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp.
Glenn M EastwoodAustin Hospital, 145 Studley Rd, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. glenn.eastwood@austin.org.au.
Michael BaileyAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Alfred Centre, 53 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia. Michael.bailey@monash.edu.
David GattasRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. dgattas@gmail.com.
Peter KrugerPrincess Alexandra Hospital, 237 Ipswich Rd, Wooloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia. p.kruger1@uq.edu.au.
Manoj SaxenaSt George Hospital, Gray St, Kogarah, NSW 2217, Australia. msaxena@georgeinstitute.org.au.
John D SantamariaSt Vincent's Hospital, 59 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria 3065, Australia. john.santamaria@svha.org.au.
Rinaldo BellomoAustin Hospital, 145 Studley Rd, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. rinaldo.bellomo@austin.org.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn this study, we aimed to examine the association between paracetamol administration in the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality in critically ill patients.

methodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in four ICUs. We obtained information on paracetamol use, body temperature, demographic, clinical and outcome data from each hospital's clinical information system and admissions and discharges database. We performed statistical analysis to assess the association between paracetamol administration and hospital mortality.

resultsWe studied 15,818 patients with 691,348 temperature measurements at 4 ICUs. Of these patients, 10,046 (64%) received at least 1 g of paracetamol. Patients who received paracetamol had lower in-hospital mortality (10% vs. 20%, P <0.001), and survivors were more likely to have received paracetamol (66% vs. 46%; P <0.001). However, patients treated with paracetamol were also more likely to be admitted to the ICU after surgery (70% vs. 51%; P <0.001) and/or after elective surgery (55% vs. 37%; P <0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis including a propensity score for paracetamol treatment, we found a significant and independent association between the use of paracetamol and reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio =0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53 to 0.68), P <0.001). Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that patients who received paracetamol also had a significantly longer time to death (adjusted hazard ratio =0.51 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.56), P <0.001). The association between paracetamol and decreased mortality and/or time to death was broadly consistent across surgical and medical patients. It remained present after adjusting for paracetamol administration as a time-dependent variable. However, when such time-dependent analysis was performed, the association of paracetamol with outcome lost statistical significance in the presence of fever and suspected infection and in patients in the lower tertiles of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores.

conclusionsParacetamol administration is common in the ICU and appears to be independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality and time to death after adjustment for multiple potential confounders and propensity score. This association, however, was modified by the presence of fever, suspected infection and lesser illness severity and may represent the effect of indication bias.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticCritical IllnessHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMulticenter Studies as TopicRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsAcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-Narcotic

Identifiers

PMID25879463
PMCPMC4411740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.