Trial reportRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva2021
Noninvasive ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy after extubation failure in high-risk patients in an intensive care unit: a pragmatic clinical trial.
Trial report in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extubation failure and the use of noninvasive ventilation during the weaning process in critically ill COVID-19 patients.Critical care scienceObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure after extubation failure.
methodsA pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in an intensive care unit from March 2009 to September 2016. Patients on mechanical ventilation > 24 hours who developed acute respiratory failure after scheduled extubation were included and were assigned to noninvasive ventilation or conventional oxygen therapy. The primary objective was to reduce the reintubation rate. The secondary objectives were to improve respiratory parameters and reduce complications, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care unit stay, the hospital stay, and mortality in the intensive care unit, in the hospital, and 90 days after discharge. Factors correlated with reintubation were also analyzed.
resultsOf a total of 2,574 patients, 77 were analyzed (38 in the noninvasive ventilation group and 39 in the conventional oxygen therapy group). Noninvasive ventilation reduced the respiratory and cardiac rates more rapidly than conventional oxygen therapy. Reintubation was less common in the noninvasive ventilation group [12 (32%) versus 22 (56%) in the conventional oxygen therapy group, relative risk 0.58 (95%CI 0.34 - 0.97), p = 0.039]. The rest of the parameters did not show significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, noninvasive ventilation protected against reintubation [OR 0.17 (95%CI 0.05 - 0.56), p = 0.004], while liver failure before extubation and the inability to maintain airway patency predisposed patients to reintubation.
conclusionThe use of noninvasive ventilation in patients who failed extubation could be beneficial compared to conventional oxygen therapy.
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.