Observational studyEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Impact of extubation failure on the duration of mechanical ventilation in the pediatric population.
Observational study in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study demonstrated that extubation failure prolonged the total duration of mechanical ventilation to twice that observed in patients with successful extubation. These findings emphasize the critical need for daily patient assessment guided by well-defined clinical criteria to ensure mechanical ventilation is discontinued precisely when the patient is clinically prepared-neither prematurely nor unnecessarily delayed. ■ In patients who experienced extubation failure, the total ventilation time was twice as long as that of patients with successful extubation. ■ The incidence of extubation failure was 5.2%, which is relatively low compared to other studies. ■ The study revealed no significant association between the presence of pre-existing illnesses and extubation outcomes. ■ Results indicated that the primary cause of extubation failure was upper airway obstruction, accounting for 67% of cases requiring reintubation.
objectiveTo compare the epidemiological profiles of patients who experienced extubation failure with those who achieved success and to evaluate the impact of extubation failure on total mechanical ventilation duration.
methodsAn observational study with both retrospective and prospective components was conducted on patients admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit of a private hospital. This study included patients who underwent mechanical ventilation and were extubated between January 2017 and December 2022. Patients were classified into extubation Success or Failure Groups, with failure defined as requiring a return to invasive mechanical ventilation within 48hs post-extubation. Epidemiological factors, including age, pre-existing illnesses, and time on invasive mechanical ventilation, were analyzed.
resultsA total of 173 patients were included, of which 9 (5.2%) required reintubation within 48hs. The total duration of mechanical ventilation differed significantly between the Success Group (3 days [1.8; 6.6]) and the Failure Group (6.5 days [5.6; 9.3]), p=0.004. Upper airway obstruction was identified as the primary cause of extubation failure.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that extubation failure doubled the total duration of mechanical ventilation compared to successful extubation. These findings highlight the importance of daily patient assessment with clearly defined clinical criteria to ensure mechanical ventilation is discontinued precisely when the patient is ready-neither prematurely nor excessively delayed.
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.