ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
Hospital cohort study on survival predictors for intubated coronavirus disease 2019 patients.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the predictors of survival among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who underwent tracheal intubation, as part of a hospital cohort study.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study in the Rio do Sul County Hospital, Santa Catarina, Brazil, from April 2020 to May 2021, focused on patients aged 18 years or older intubated for coronavirus disease 2019. We assessed the 90-day survival of intubated patients by estimating the hazard ratio using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.
resultsThe study included 132 participants, with an average age of approximately 60 years. Tracheal intubation was successfully accomplished in 97% of cases within two attempts. The overall mortality rate was 62.9%. Notably, mortality rates were significantly higher in patients aged over 60 years (hazard ratio=2.57; 95%CI 1.54-4.29; p<0.001), those with blood oxygen saturation below 85% (hazard ratio=1.92; 95%CI 1.03-3.57; p=0.04), instances where tracheal intubation was carried out using a conventional laryngoscope (hazard ratio=2.59; 95%CI 1.22-5.48; p=0.013), and when performed by emergency physicians (hazard ratio=3.96; 95%CI 1.51-10.4; p=0.005).
conclusionOur analysis unveiled that the risk of death in intubated coronavirus disease 2019 patients is four times higher when an emergency physician, as opposed to an anesthesiologist, leads the tracheal intubation team.
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.