ArticlePloS one2022
Neuromuscular blockade in mechanically ventilated pneumonia patients with moderate to severe hypoxemia: A multicenter retrospective study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of symptoms and establishment of a predictive model for PICS in mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia: a retrospective study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Application of Neuromuscular Blockers in Patients with ARDS in ICU: A Retrospective Study Based on the MIMIC-III Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Future directions in ventilator-induced lung injury associated cognitive impairment: a new sight.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeThe benefit of neuromuscular blockades (NMBs) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether NMB use is associated with improved survival of mechanically ventilated pneumonia patients with moderate to severe hypoxemia.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study was conducted at five university-affiliated hospitals. Data of pneumonia patients aged 18 years and older who received mechanical ventilation between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, were analyzed.
resultsIn a total of 1,130 patients, the mean patient age was 73.1 years (SD±12.6), and the overall mortality rate at 30 d was 29.5% (n = 333). NMB users had a higher 30 d mortality rate than NMB nonusers (33.9% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.014). After PS matching, the 30 d mortality rate was not significantly different between NMB users and nonusers (33.4% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.089). However, 90 d mortality rate was significantly increased in NMB users (39.7% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.021). Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses showed that NMB use ≥ 3 d was significant risk factor for the 90 d mortality than those with < 3 d use (90 d mortality HR 1.39 [95% CI: 1.01-1.91], P = 0.045).
conclusionsNMB use was not associated with lower 30 d mortality among mechanically ventilated pneumonia patients with moderate to severe hypoxemia. Rather, NMB users had higher 90 d mortality, furthermore, and NMB use ≥ 3 d was associated with a higher risk of long-term mortality compared to NMB use < 3 d. Therefore, care should be taken to avoid extended use of NMB in critically ill pneumonia patients during mechanical ventilation.
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.