ArticlePloS one2020
Survival predictors after intubation in medical wards: A prospective study in 151 patients.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality analysis among sepsis patients in and out of intensive care units using the Japanese nationwide medical claims database: a study by the Japan Sepsis Alliance study group.Journal of intensive care · 2023Article
- Comparing Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients in Intensive Care Units and General Wards: A Comprehensive Analysis.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Intensive care unit versus high-dependency care unit for mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia: a nationwide comparative effectiveness study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn health care systems in need of additional intensive care unit (ICU) beds, the decision to mechanically ventilate critically ill patients in Internal Medicine (IM) Department wards needs to balance patients' health outcomes, possible futility, and logistics. We aimed to examine the survival rates and predictors in these patients.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation during their care in the IM wards of a tertiary University hospital between April 2016 and December 2018. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and ICU transfer.
resultsOur cohort consisted of 151 unique patient intubations, of whom 74 (49%) patients were transferred to ICU within a median of 0 days (range 0-7). Compared to patients who remained in the wards, patients transferred to ICU had lower in-hospital and 90-day mortality (65% vs. 97%, and 70% vs. 99%, respectively, p<0.001 for both). Amongst several possible predictors of survival in the ICU, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at the time of intubation had the best prognostic accuracy with an AUROC of 0.818 and 0.855 for in-hospital and 90-day mortality, respectively. A baseline SOFA score ≤8 had a 100% sensitivity for survival prediction in ICU. However, out of 26 patients with SOFA score ≤8 who remained in the wards, only one survived, whereas 19 patients with SOFA score >8 who were transferred to ICUs received futile care.
conclusionMortality for patients receiving mechanical ventilation in IM wards is almost inevitable when ICU availability is lacking. Therefore, applying additional transfer criteria beyond the SOFA score is imperative.
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.