ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Risks and outcomes of extubation failure after acute stanford Type A aortic dissection: a retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtubation failure is a serious adverse event after cardiac surgery, particularly following acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair, with rates exceeding those after routine general anesthesia. This study aimed to identify risk factors and compare outcomes between patients who experienced extubation successfully and those who experienced extubation failure after ATAAD surgery.
methodsWe included consecutive patients admitted to the ICU following ATAAD surgery between January 2016 and December 2021. Using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) on the basis of patient characteristics and medical history, we compared matched cohorts with successful extubation and those with failed extubation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify optimal predictive thresholds. Both univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of extubation failure. We analysed the reasons for extubation failure.
resultsAfter PSM (18 patients per group), patients with extubation failure had higher preoperative APACHE II scores (12.89 ± 3.07 vs. 10.00 ± 1.94; P = 0.002) and GERAADA scores (25.14 ± 6.25 vs. 19.06 ± 10.81; P = 0.046). ROC analysis identified thresholds: APACHE II > 12.5 (AUC 0.744) and GERAADA > 21.9% (AUC 0.832); DeLong test P = 0.485. Multivariable analysis confirmed APACHE II as an independent predictor (OR = 1.66, P = 0.023). Among extubation failure patients, early reintubation (≤ 24 h) occurred in 5 (23.8%, primarily surgical complications) and late reintubation (> 24 h) in 16 (76.2%, predominantly pulmonary infection/secretion retention). No significant differences were observed in preoperative/peri-extubation oxygenation, carbon dioxide retention, ICU stay, or mortality rates between groups.
conclusionsPreoperative APACHE II score > 12.5 and GERAADA score > 21.9% may identify patients at increased risk of extubation failure after ATAAD surgery. Given that delayed failure was primarily driven by impaired airway clearance, post-extubation management should prioritize airway clearance strategies alongside conventional oxygen support. These exploratory findings require prospective validation.
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.