Impact of the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis: a multicenter cohort study

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Gyungah Kim, Dong Kyu Oh, Su Yeon Lee, Mi Hyeon Park, Chae-Man Lim
{"title":"Impact of the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis: a multicenter cohort study","authors":"Gyungah Kim, Dong Kyu Oh, Su Yeon Lee, Mi Hyeon Park, Chae-Man Lim","doi":"10.1186/s13054-024-05064-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The potential adverse effects associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) can lead to delayed decisions on starting MV. We aimed to explore the association between the timing of MV and the clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis ventilated in intensive care unit (ICU). We analyzed data of adult patients with sepsis between September 2019 and December 2021. Data was collected through the Korean Sepsis Alliance from 20 hospitals in Korea. Patients who were admitted to ICU and received MV were included in the study. Patients were divided into ‘early MV’ and ‘delayed MV’ groups based on whether they were on MV on the first day of ICU admission or later. Propensity score matching was applied, and patients in the two groups were compared on a 1:1 ratio to overcome bias between the groups. Outcomes including ICU mortality, hospital mortality, length of hospital and ICU stay, and organ failure at ICU discharge were compared. Out of 2440 patients on MV during ICU stay, 2119 ‘early MV’ and 321 ‘delayed MV’ cases were analyzed. The propensity score matching identified 295 patients in each group with similar baseline characteristics. ICU mortality was lower in ‘early MV’ group than ‘delayed MV’ group (36.3% vs. 46.4%; odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.93; p = 0.015). ‘Early MV’ group had lower in-hospital mortality, shorter ICU stay, and required tracheostomy less frequently than ‘delayed MV’ group. Multivariable logistic regression model identified ‘early MV’ as associated with lower ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.29–0.50; p < 0.001). In patients with sepsis ventilated in ICU, earlier start (first day of ICU admission) of MV may be associated with lower mortality.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05064-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The potential adverse effects associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) can lead to delayed decisions on starting MV. We aimed to explore the association between the timing of MV and the clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis ventilated in intensive care unit (ICU). We analyzed data of adult patients with sepsis between September 2019 and December 2021. Data was collected through the Korean Sepsis Alliance from 20 hospitals in Korea. Patients who were admitted to ICU and received MV were included in the study. Patients were divided into ‘early MV’ and ‘delayed MV’ groups based on whether they were on MV on the first day of ICU admission or later. Propensity score matching was applied, and patients in the two groups were compared on a 1:1 ratio to overcome bias between the groups. Outcomes including ICU mortality, hospital mortality, length of hospital and ICU stay, and organ failure at ICU discharge were compared. Out of 2440 patients on MV during ICU stay, 2119 ‘early MV’ and 321 ‘delayed MV’ cases were analyzed. The propensity score matching identified 295 patients in each group with similar baseline characteristics. ICU mortality was lower in ‘early MV’ group than ‘delayed MV’ group (36.3% vs. 46.4%; odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.93; p = 0.015). ‘Early MV’ group had lower in-hospital mortality, shorter ICU stay, and required tracheostomy less frequently than ‘delayed MV’ group. Multivariable logistic regression model identified ‘early MV’ as associated with lower ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.29–0.50; p < 0.001). In patients with sepsis ventilated in ICU, earlier start (first day of ICU admission) of MV may be associated with lower mortality.
脓毒症患者进行有创机械通气时机的影响:一项多中心队列研究
与有创机械通气(MV)相关的潜在不良反应可能会导致延迟决定是否开始 MV。我们旨在探讨在重症监护室(ICU)接受通气治疗的脓毒症患者中,通气时间与临床预后之间的关系。我们分析了 2019 年 9 月至 2021 年 12 月期间脓毒症成人患者的数据。数据是通过韩国脓毒症联盟从韩国 20 家医院收集的。研究纳入了入住 ICU 并接受 MV 治疗的患者。根据患者是否在入住重症监护室的第一天或之后接受 MV 治疗,将其分为 "早期 MV "组和 "延迟 MV "组。采用倾向得分匹配法,两组患者按 1:1 的比例进行比较,以消除组间偏差。比较的结果包括重症监护室死亡率、住院死亡率、住院时间和重症监护室住院时间,以及重症监护室出院时的器官衰竭情况。在 2440 名在重症监护室住院期间接受 MV 治疗的患者中,对 2119 例 "早期 MV "和 321 例 "延迟 MV "进行了分析。通过倾向评分匹配,发现每组中有 295 名患者的基线特征相似。早期 MV "组的 ICU 死亡率低于 "延迟 MV "组(36.3% 对 46.4%;几率比 0.66;95% 置信区间 0.47-0.93;P = 0.015)。与 "延迟中风 "组相比,"早期中风 "组的院内死亡率较低、重症监护室住院时间较短、需要气管切开术的次数较少。多变量逻辑回归模型确定 "早期 MV "与较低的 ICU 死亡率相关(几率比为 0.38;95% 置信区间为 0.29-0.50;P < 0.001)。对于在重症监护室接受通气治疗的脓毒症患者来说,较早开始使用 MV(重症监护室入院第一天)可能与较低的死亡率有关。
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
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
×
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