ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022
Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02780466 (Observational Study on Intubation in Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Observational Study on Intubation in Septic Shock
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Endotracheal Intubation Timing on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Severe Pneumonia: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Effect of early intubation on patient-centered outcomes in urosepsis: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Observational
- Factors associated with the intubation of patients with acute respiratory failure and their impact on mortality: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Using machine learning techniques for early prediction of tracheal intubation in patients with septic shock: a multi-center study in South Korea.Acute and critical care · 2025Article
- Intubate patients with sepsis before midnight or do it when the time comes?Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of patients with septic shock: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis: a multicenter cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Effect of immediate initiation of invasive ventilation on mortality in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a target trial emulation.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDespite the benefits of mechanical ventilation, its use in critically ill patients is associated with complications and had led to the growth of noninvasive techniques. We assessed the effect of early intubation (first 8 h after vasopressor start) in septic shock patients, as compared to non-early intubated subjects (unexposed), regarding in-hospital mortality, intensive care and hospital length of stay.
methodsThis study involves secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective study. To adjust for baseline differences in potential confounders, propensity score matching was carried out. In-hospital mortality was analyzed in a time-to-event fashion, while length of stay was assessed as a median difference using bootstrapping.
resultsA total of 735 patients (137 intubated in the first 8 h) were evaluated. Propensity score matching identified 78 pairs with similar severity and characteristics on admission. Intubation was used in all patients in the early intubation group and in 27 (35%) subjects beyond 8 h in the unexposed group. Mortality occurred in 35 (45%) and in 26 (33%) subjects in the early intubation and unexposed groups (hazard ratio 1.44 95% CI 0.86-2.39, p = 0.16). ICU and hospital length of stay were not different among groups [9 vs. 5 (95% CI 1 to 7) and 14 vs. 16 (95% CI - 7 to 8) days]. All sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.
conclusionsAn early approach to invasive mechanical ventilation did not improve outcomes in this matched cohort of patients. The limited number of patients included in these analyses out the total number included in the study may limit generalizability of these findings. Trial registration NCT02780466. Registered on May 19, 2016.
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.