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

Q4 Medicine
Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2024-08-09 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001145
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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