The Impact of Delayed Transition From Noninvasive to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation on Hospital Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients With Sepsis.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006400
Yang Xu, Yi-Fan Wang, Yi-Wei Liu, Run Dong, Yan Chen, Yi Wang, Li Weng, Bin Du
{"title":"The Impact of Delayed Transition From Noninvasive to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation on Hospital Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients With Sepsis.","authors":"Yang Xu, Yi-Fan Wang, Yi-Wei Liu, Run Dong, Yan Chen, Yi Wang, Li Weng, Bin Du","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether mortality differed between initial invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) followed by delayed IMV in immunocompromised patients with sepsis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective analysis using the National Data Center for Medical Service claims data in China from 2017 to 2019.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A total of 3530 hospitals across China.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>A total of 36,187 adult immunocompromised patients with sepsis requiring ventilation.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Patients were categorized into NIV initiation or IMV initiation groups based on first ventilation. NIV patients were further divided by time to IMV transition: no transition, immediate (≤ 1 d), early (2-3 d), delayed (4-7 d), or late (≥ 8 d). Mortality was compared between groups using weighted Cox models. Over the median 9-day follow-up, mortality was similar for initial NIV versus IMV (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.006; 95% CI, 0.959-1.055). However, among NIV patients, a longer time to IMV transition is associated with stepwise increases in mortality, from immediate transition (HR 1.65) to late transition (HR 2.51), compared with initial IMV. This dose-response relationship persisted across subgroups and sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prolonged NIV trial before delayed IMV transition is associated with higher mortality in immunocompromised sepsis patients ultimately intubated.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1739-1749"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006400","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether mortality differed between initial invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) followed by delayed IMV in immunocompromised patients with sepsis.

Design: Retrospective analysis using the National Data Center for Medical Service claims data in China from 2017 to 2019.

Setting: A total of 3530 hospitals across China.

Patients: A total of 36,187 adult immunocompromised patients with sepsis requiring ventilation.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Patients were categorized into NIV initiation or IMV initiation groups based on first ventilation. NIV patients were further divided by time to IMV transition: no transition, immediate (≤ 1 d), early (2-3 d), delayed (4-7 d), or late (≥ 8 d). Mortality was compared between groups using weighted Cox models. Over the median 9-day follow-up, mortality was similar for initial NIV versus IMV (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.006; 95% CI, 0.959-1.055). However, among NIV patients, a longer time to IMV transition is associated with stepwise increases in mortality, from immediate transition (HR 1.65) to late transition (HR 2.51), compared with initial IMV. This dose-response relationship persisted across subgroups and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Prolonged NIV trial before delayed IMV transition is associated with higher mortality in immunocompromised sepsis patients ultimately intubated.

免疫功能低下的败血症患者从无创机械通气延迟到有创机械通气对住院死亡率的影响。
目的确定免疫功能低下的败血症患者在初始有创机械通气(IMV)或无创通气(NIV)后延迟IMV的死亡率是否存在差异:利用2017年至2019年中国国家医疗服务数据中心的报销数据进行回顾性分析:全国共3530家医院:干预措施:无:无:主要结果为住院死亡率。根据首次通气时间将患者分为 NIV 启动组和 IMV 启动组。NIV患者按IMV过渡时间进一步划分:无过渡、立即(≤1 d)、早期(2-3 d)、延迟(4-7 d)或晚期(≥8 d)。采用加权 Cox 模型对各组死亡率进行比较。在中位 9 天的随访期间,初始 NIV 与 IMV 的死亡率相似(调整后危险比 [HR] 1.006;95% CI,0.959-1.055)。然而,在 NIV 患者中,与初始 IMV 相比,IMV 过渡时间越长,死亡率就越高,从立即过渡(HR 1.65)到晚期过渡(HR 2.51)。这种剂量-反应关系在不同的亚组和敏感性分析中都持续存在:结论:在延迟 IMV 过渡之前延长 NIV 试验时间与免疫力低下的脓毒症患者最终插管的死亡率较高有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信