ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Initial sedation strategy and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated neurocritical care patients with acute brain injury: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sedation is a cornerstone in the management of neurocritical care patients with brain injuries. However, optimal sedation practices remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate the association between initial sedation strategies and key clinical outcomes, including duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, extubation success, and mortality. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed 147 adult patients with acute brain injury admitted to neurocritical care units. Eligible patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ≥24 h and underwent at least one weaning attempt. Sedation agents assessed included propofol, midazolam, combined regimens, dexmedetomidine, sodium thiopental and no sedation. Data on demographics, comorbidities, ventilation parameters, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed using SPSS v27. Regression models evaluated the impact of sedation type on clinical outcomes. Results: This study included 147 critically ill patients. Sedation practices shifted over time, with propofol use decreasing from 46.2% on Day 1 to 26.3% on Day 7, while the proportion of patients receiving no sedation increased to 38.7%. Hospital interventions, including use of ICP monitors and ventilation strategies, varied significantly across sedation groups. Combined sedation and no sedation groups had significantly prolonged mechanical ventilation and ICU stays. Regression analysis showed that compared to propofol, combined sedation was associated with increased IMV days (B = 3.470, Conclusion: Sedation strategy significantly influences clinical aspects in neurocritical care. Propofol appears superior for facilitating faster recovery, while midazolam and combined use are linked to adverse outcomes. Individualized, protocol-driven sedation approaches are essential to optimize care for patients with acute brain injury.
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.