Observational studyCritical care science2026
Ventilator Settings and Monitoring Variables Associated with Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Observational study in Critical care science, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMechanical ventilation is an essential tool in the management of acute respiratory failure. Extubation is a critical event in the clinical course of patients, yet it may fail even in those who successfully complete a spontaneous breathing trial. This study aimed to evaluate which ventilator settings and monitoring variables are associated with extubation failure.
methodsThis was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study, including patients from July 2021 to December 2022 across five intensive care units in Argentina. Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who received at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation and underwent an extubation were included. A multivariable logistic regression was performed with extubation failure - defined as reintubation or death within 7 days post-extubation- as the outcome variable. The analysis was adjusted for APACHE II score, type of spontaneous breathing trial, use of non-invasive ventilatory support after extubation, and COVID-19 as a reason for mechanical ventilation.
resultsA total of 516 patients were analyzed, with an extubation failure rate of 35.8%. Oxygenation, measured by the oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio prior to extubation was associated with a protective effect (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.993 - 0.997) while higher positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, and peak pressure showed a significant association with extubation failure (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.09 - 1.45; OR 1.04, 95%CI 1.01 - 1.07; OR 1.04, 95%CI 1,003 - 1.07 respectively). Additionally, patients who failed had a higher incidence of delirium on the day of extubation and greater use of neuromuscular blocking agents during their intensive care unit stay.
conclusionIn critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, monitoring parameters, and oxygenation status at the time of extubation may influence the likelihood of success. Better oxygenation appears protective, whereas elevated positive end-expiratory pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen may indicate increased vulnerability to extubation failure.
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.