ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Using laxative to recover intestinal function could improve the survival outcome for patients with cardiac arrest: a retrospective cohort study from MIMIC-IV database.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2026. 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.
- Association of fluid balance trajectories and cumulative fluid balance with in-hospital mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite advances in post-cardiac arrest (CA) care, mortality rates remain high. Intestinal dysfunction following CA is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. While laxatives might be a potential therapeutic strategy for restoring intestinal function, there is currently a lack of evidence.
objectiveThis study aims to explore the safety and efficacy of laxatives as therapeutic agents for intestinal function recovery in CA, while further assessing the most suitable types of laxatives for this clinical context.
methodsUtilizing the MIMIC-IV database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study categorizing patients into laxative and non-laxative groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline characteristics. We classified confounders into prehospital and hospitalization categories, establishing three hierarchical adjustment models. Through multivariable Cox and logistic regression analyses, we assessed 30-day and extended mortality risks while evaluating laxative-associated safety outcomes. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was utilized to assess the time-varying effect of laxative administration. Furthermore, we also comparatively analyzed the risk-benefit profiles of commonly used laxatives.
results2604 patients were eligible for this study. After PSM, a total of 898 patients were average divided into two groups. Patients in the laxative group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in 30-day mortality risk compared to the non-laxative group (HR = 0.686, 95%CI [0.550-0.855], P = 0.001). After applying time-dependent Cox regression analysis, the results remain consistent (HR = - 0.771 + 0.632 × ln[day + 1], 95%CI [0.528-0.835], P = 0.001). Meanwhile, laxative did not increase the risk of sepsis and Clostridium difficile infection but improved the bowel sounds recovery and increased the ICU-free day. Further subgroup analysis revealed that the use of docusate sodium (HR = 0.753, 95%CI [0.566-1.000], P = 0.050) may be associated with a decreased mortality risk.
conclusionEarly using laxative to improve intestinal function is associated with improved survival outcomes. However, clinical application may be guided by the bowel sounds recovery and demonstrated tolerance to enteral feeding. This still requires further studies to confirm.
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.