Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28541747›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2017

Evidence-based Utilization of Noninvasive Ventilation and Patient Outcomes.

Anuj B Mehta, Ivor S Douglas, Allan J Walkey

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Noninvasive Ventilation Use in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Asthma Exacerbations.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19: Interpreting the Current Epidemiology.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anuj B Mehta1 Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado.
Ivor S Douglas2 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Denver Health, Denver, Colorado.
Allan J Walkey4 Pulmonary Center, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; and.
Denver Health Medical Center · USBoston University · US

Funding

BIOLOGY OF THE LUNG--MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMT32HL007035 · NHLBI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Darrell N. Kotton, JOSEPH P MIZGERD · 1985 to 2026
$24.3M
Atrial Fibrillation in Sepsis: Patient Outcomes and Provider Practice PatternsK01HL116768 · NHLBI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI WALKEY, ALLAN J. · 2013 to 2017
$742k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL116768NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleStrong evidence supports use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with respiratory distress from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure (strong evidence conditions [SECs]). Despite unclear benefits of NIV for other causes of acute respiratory failure, utilization for conditions with weaker evidence is increasing, despite evidence demonstrating higher mortality for patients who suffer NIV failure (progression from NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV])) compared with being treated initially with IMV.

objectivesTo determine the association of hospital variation in evidence-based utilization of NIV with patient outcomes.

methodsUsing the California State Inpatient Database 2011, we identified adult patients who received NIV. Patients were considered to have an SEC for NIV if they had an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to determine the association between hospital rates of NIV use for SECs and patient risk of NIV failure (need for IMV after NIV).

resultsAmong 22,706 hospitalizations with NIV as the initial ventilatory strategy, 6,820 (30.0%) had SECs. Patients with SECs had lower risk of NIV failure than patients with weak evidence conditions (8.1 vs. 18.2%, P < 0.0001). Regardless of underlying diagnosis, patients admitted to hospitals with greater use of NIV for SECs had lower risk of NIV failure (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.80). Even patients without an SEC benefited from admission to hospitals that used NIV more often for patients with SECs (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio for NIV failure = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52-0.88).

conclusionsMost patients who received NIV did not have conditions with strong supporting evidence for its use with wide institutional variation in patient selection for NIV. Surprisingly, we found that all patients, even those without an SEC, benefited from admission to hospitals with greater evidence-based utilization of NIV, suggesting a "hospital effect" that is synergistic with patient selection.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCaliforniaDisease ProgressionFemaleHeart FailureHospitalizationHospital MortalityHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNoninvasive VentilationPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRespiratory Insufficiencychronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseheart failureinvasive mechanical ventilationnoninvasive ventilation

Identifiers

PMID28541747
PMCPMC5711281
OpenAlexW2619649296

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.