ArticleCureus2026
Surgical Patients Admitted to Intensive Care: Do Elective and Urgent Surgical Patients Have Similar Outcomes?
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe landscape of critical care is evolving. Advances in treatment and supportive care, along with the evolving technology supporting surgical interventions, such as robotics, have made it possible to achieve outstanding results. Contemporary evaluation of prognosis in critically ill surgical patients is paramount to support individualized care and informed decision-making. This study aimed to assess and compare short-term (first 30 days) and long-term (up to two years) outcomes of elective versus urgent surgical patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and to characterize their clinical trajectory patterns beyond the traditional grouping of "surgical patients."
methodsWe performed a post hoc analysis of the Critically Ill patients' mortality by age: Long-Term follow-up (CIMbA-LT) study, a retrospective, multicenter, observational study conducted on Portuguese multipurpose ICUs over four years. Surgical patients were segregated for further analysis. We compared differences between patients admitted after elective or urgent surgery.
resultsWe included 13,748 surgical adult patients admitted to an ICU during the study period. Roughly one-third underwent elective procedures and two-thirds urgent surgery. Patients submitted to an urgent procedure presented higher severity and in-hospital mortality (24.6% versus 8.2%, p<0.001), while among those discharged alive, scheduled surgery patients had higher long-term mortality (28.9% versus 25.0%, odds ratio (OR): 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.32). This difference in the long-term risk was statistically significant in the younger population. All surgical critically ill patients had a markedly increased risk of one-year mortality, compared to the general population, even after hospital discharge (urgent surgery: OR: 10.8, 95% CI: 9.0-12.9; elective surgery: OR: 14.6, 95% CI: 11.3-18.8).
conclusionsElective and urgent surgical patients admitted to the ICU demonstrate distinct clinical trajectories and require tailored follow-up strategies. Urgent surgery patients have higher short-term mortality, while elective surgical patients showed higher long-term mortality risk, particularly noticeable in younger cohorts. All surgical patients admitted to the ICU had a very high first-year risk of mortality.
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.