Vassilis G Giannakoulis, Georgios Psychogios, Christina Routsi, Ioanna Dimopoulou, Ilias I Siempos
{"title":"早期与延迟气管造口术策略对严重创伤性脑损伤患者功能预后的影响:目标试验模拟","authors":"Vassilis G Giannakoulis, Georgios Psychogios, Christina Routsi, Ioanna Dimopoulou, Ilias I Siempos","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Optimal timing of tracheostomy in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unknown due to lack of clinical trials. We emulated a target trial to estimate the effect of early vs. delayed tracheostomy strategy on functional outcome of patients with severe TBI.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Target trial emulation using 1:1 balanced risk-set matching.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>North American hospitals participating in the TBI Hypertonic Saline randomized controlled trial of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>The prematching population consisted of patients with TBI and admission Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8, who were alive and on mechanical ventilation on the fourth day following trial enrollment, and stayed in the ICU for at least 5 days. Patients with absolute indication for tracheostomy and patients who died during the first 28 days with a decision to withdraw care were excluded.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We matched patients who received tracheostomy at a certain timepoint (early group) with patients who had not received tracheostomy at the same timepoint but were at-risk of tracheostomy in the future (delayed group). The primary outcome was a poor 6-month functional outcome, defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended less than or equal to 4.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Out of 1282 patients available for analysis, 275 comprised the prematching population, with 75 pairs being created postmatching. Median time of tracheostomy differed significantly in the early vs. the delayed group (7.0 d [6.0-10.0 d] vs. 12.0 d [9.8-18.3 d]; p < 0.001). Only 40% of patients in the delayed group received tracheostomy. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding poor 6-month functional outcome (early: 68.0% vs. delayed: 72.0%; p = 0.593).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a target trial emulation, early as opposed to delayed tracheostomy strategy was not associated with differences in 6-month functional outcome following severe TBI. Considering the limitations of target trial emulations, delaying tracheostomy through a \"watchful waiting\" approach may be appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 8","pages":"e1145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11319316/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Early Versus Delayed Tracheostomy Strategy on Functional Outcome of Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Target Trial Emulation.\",\"authors\":\"Vassilis G Giannakoulis, Georgios Psychogios, Christina Routsi, Ioanna Dimopoulou, Ilias I Siempos\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Optimal timing of tracheostomy in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unknown due to lack of clinical trials. We emulated a target trial to estimate the effect of early vs. delayed tracheostomy strategy on functional outcome of patients with severe TBI.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Target trial emulation using 1:1 balanced risk-set matching.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>North American hospitals participating in the TBI Hypertonic Saline randomized controlled trial of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>The prematching population consisted of patients with TBI and admission Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8, who were alive and on mechanical ventilation on the fourth day following trial enrollment, and stayed in the ICU for at least 5 days. Patients with absolute indication for tracheostomy and patients who died during the first 28 days with a decision to withdraw care were excluded.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We matched patients who received tracheostomy at a certain timepoint (early group) with patients who had not received tracheostomy at the same timepoint but were at-risk of tracheostomy in the future (delayed group). The primary outcome was a poor 6-month functional outcome, defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended less than or equal to 4.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Out of 1282 patients available for analysis, 275 comprised the prematching population, with 75 pairs being created postmatching. Median time of tracheostomy differed significantly in the early vs. the delayed group (7.0 d [6.0-10.0 d] vs. 12.0 d [9.8-18.3 d]; p < 0.001). Only 40% of patients in the delayed group received tracheostomy. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding poor 6-month functional outcome (early: 68.0% vs. delayed: 72.0%; p = 0.593).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a target trial emulation, early as opposed to delayed tracheostomy strategy was not associated with differences in 6-month functional outcome following severe TBI. Considering the limitations of target trial emulations, delaying tracheostomy through a \\\"watchful waiting\\\" approach may be appropriate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"volume\":\"6 8\",\"pages\":\"e1145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11319316/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:由于缺乏临床试验,严重创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者气管切开术的最佳时机尚不明确。我们模拟了一项目标试验,以估计早期与延迟气管切开术策略对严重创伤性脑损伤患者功能预后的影响:设计:目标试验模拟,采用 1:1 平衡风险匹配:参与复苏结果联盟 TBI 高渗盐水随机对照试验的北美医院:预匹配人群包括患有创伤性脑损伤且入院时格拉斯哥昏迷量表小于或等于 8,在试验加入后第四天仍存活并接受机械通气,且在重症监护室至少住院 5 天的患者。有气管切开术绝对指征的患者和在最初 28 天内死亡并决定放弃治疗的患者除外:我们将在某个时间点接受气管切开术的患者(早期组)与在同一时间点未接受气管切开术但未来有可能接受气管切开术的患者(延迟组)进行配对。主要结果是6个月的不良功能结果,即格拉斯哥结果量表扩展版小于或等于4:在可供分析的 1282 例患者中,275 例为配对前患者,75 例为配对后患者。早期组与延迟组的气管造口术中位时间差异显著(7.0 d [6.0-10.0 d] vs. 12.0 d [9.8-18.3 d]; p < 0.001)。延迟组中只有 40% 的患者接受了气管切开术。在6个月的不良功能预后方面,组间差异无统计学意义(早期:68.0% vs. 延误:72.0%;P = 0.593):结论:在目标试验模拟中,早期气管切开术策略与延迟气管切开术策略与严重创伤性脑损伤后 6 个月功能预后的差异无关。考虑到目标试验模拟的局限性,通过 "观察等待 "的方法延迟气管切开术可能是合适的。
Effect of Early Versus Delayed Tracheostomy Strategy on Functional Outcome of Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Target Trial Emulation.
Objectives: Optimal timing of tracheostomy in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unknown due to lack of clinical trials. We emulated a target trial to estimate the effect of early vs. delayed tracheostomy strategy on functional outcome of patients with severe TBI.
Design: Target trial emulation using 1:1 balanced risk-set matching.
Setting: North American hospitals participating in the TBI Hypertonic Saline randomized controlled trial of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium.
Patients: The prematching population consisted of patients with TBI and admission Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8, who were alive and on mechanical ventilation on the fourth day following trial enrollment, and stayed in the ICU for at least 5 days. Patients with absolute indication for tracheostomy and patients who died during the first 28 days with a decision to withdraw care were excluded.
Interventions: We matched patients who received tracheostomy at a certain timepoint (early group) with patients who had not received tracheostomy at the same timepoint but were at-risk of tracheostomy in the future (delayed group). The primary outcome was a poor 6-month functional outcome, defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended less than or equal to 4.
Measurements and main results: Out of 1282 patients available for analysis, 275 comprised the prematching population, with 75 pairs being created postmatching. Median time of tracheostomy differed significantly in the early vs. the delayed group (7.0 d [6.0-10.0 d] vs. 12.0 d [9.8-18.3 d]; p < 0.001). Only 40% of patients in the delayed group received tracheostomy. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding poor 6-month functional outcome (early: 68.0% vs. delayed: 72.0%; p = 0.593).
Conclusions: In a target trial emulation, early as opposed to delayed tracheostomy strategy was not associated with differences in 6-month functional outcome following severe TBI. Considering the limitations of target trial emulations, delaying tracheostomy through a "watchful waiting" approach may be appropriate.