Timing of Tracheostomy in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 3.2 3区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY Life-Basel Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.3390/life14091165
Raffaele Merola, Carmine Iacovazzo, Stefania Troise, Annachiara Marra, Antonella Formichella, Giuseppe Servillo, Maria Vargas
{"title":"Timing of Tracheostomy in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Raffaele Merola, Carmine Iacovazzo, Stefania Troise, Annachiara Marra, Antonella Formichella, Giuseppe Servillo, Maria Vargas","doi":"10.3390/life14091165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The ideal timing for tracheostomy in critically ill patients is still debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether early tracheostomy improves clinical outcomes compared to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the risk of clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent early (within 7-10 days of intubation) versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2023. The primary outcome evaluated was mortality, while secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. No language restriction was applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing early to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients that reported on mortality. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and evidence certainty was assessed via the GRADE approach. <b>Results:</b> This systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 RCTs, covering 3586 critically ill patients. Early tracheostomy modestly decreased mortality compared to the control (RR -0.1511 [95% CI: -0.2951 to -0.0070], <i>p</i> = 0.0398). It also reduced ICU length of stay (SMD -0.6237 [95% CI: -0.9526 to -0.2948], <i>p</i> = 0.0002) and the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to late tracheostomy (SMD -0.3887 [95% CI: -0.7726 to -0.0048], <i>p</i> = 0.0472). However, early tracheostomy did not significantly reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to prolonged intubation (SMD -0.1192 [95% CI: -0.2986 to 0.0601], <i>p</i> = 0.1927) or affect VAP incidence (RR -0.0986 [95% CI: -0.2272 to 0.0299], <i>p</i> = 0.1327). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for each outcome indicated that additional trials are needed for conclusive evidence. <b>Conclusions:</b> Early tracheostomy appears to offer some benefits across all considered clinical outcomes when compared to late tracheostomy and prolonged intubation.</p>","PeriodicalId":56144,"journal":{"name":"Life-Basel","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11433256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life-Basel","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/life14091165","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ideal timing for tracheostomy in critically ill patients is still debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether early tracheostomy improves clinical outcomes compared to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the risk of clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent early (within 7-10 days of intubation) versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2023. The primary outcome evaluated was mortality, while secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. No language restriction was applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing early to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients that reported on mortality. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and evidence certainty was assessed via the GRADE approach. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 RCTs, covering 3586 critically ill patients. Early tracheostomy modestly decreased mortality compared to the control (RR -0.1511 [95% CI: -0.2951 to -0.0070], p = 0.0398). It also reduced ICU length of stay (SMD -0.6237 [95% CI: -0.9526 to -0.2948], p = 0.0002) and the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to late tracheostomy (SMD -0.3887 [95% CI: -0.7726 to -0.0048], p = 0.0472). However, early tracheostomy did not significantly reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to prolonged intubation (SMD -0.1192 [95% CI: -0.2986 to 0.0601], p = 0.1927) or affect VAP incidence (RR -0.0986 [95% CI: -0.2272 to 0.0299], p = 0.1327). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for each outcome indicated that additional trials are needed for conclusive evidence. Conclusions: Early tracheostomy appears to offer some benefits across all considered clinical outcomes when compared to late tracheostomy and prolonged intubation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ICU 患者气管切开术的时机:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
背景:重症患者气管切开术的理想时机仍存在争议。这篇系统综述和荟萃分析探讨了在使用机械通气的重症患者中,与晚期气管切开术或延长插管相比,早期气管切开术是否能改善临床疗效。方法:我们对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了全面检索,这些试验评估了重症监护病房(ICU)患者早期(插管后 7-10 天内)与晚期气管切开术或延长插管的临床预后风险。所检索的数据库包括 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library(截至 2023 年 6 月)。评估的主要结果是死亡率,次要结果包括呼吸机相关肺炎(VAP)发生率、重症监护室住院时间和机械通气持续时间。没有语言限制。符合条件的研究均为对重症患者进行早期与晚期气管切开术或延长插管进行比较的研究,并报告了死亡率。采用针对 RCT 的 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,并采用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性。结果:该系统综述和荟萃分析包括 19 项研究性临床试验,涉及 3586 名重症患者。与对照组相比,早期气管切开术可适度降低死亡率(RR -0.1511 [95% CI: -0.2951 to -0.0070],p = 0.0398)。与晚期气管切开术相比,它还缩短了重症监护室的住院时间(SMD -0.6237 [95% CI: -0.9526 to -0.2948],p = 0.0002)和机械通气时间(SMD -0.3887 [95% CI: -0.7726 to -0.0048],p = 0.0472)。然而,与长期插管相比,早期气管切开术并不能显著缩短机械通气时间(SMD -0.1192 [95% CI: -0.2986 to 0.0601],p = 0.1927),也不会影响 VAP 发生率(RR -0.0986 [95% CI: -0.2272 to 0.0299],p = 0.1327)。对每种结果进行的试验序列分析(TSA)表明,需要进行更多试验才能获得确凿证据。结论:与晚期气管切开术和延长插管相比,早期气管切开术似乎在所有考虑的临床结果中都有一定的优势。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Life-Basel
Life-Basel Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
1798
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Life (ISSN 2075-1729) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal of scientific studies related to fundamental themes in Life Sciences, especially those concerned with the origins of life and evolution of biosystems. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers.
期刊最新文献
Advances in Extremophile Research: Biotechnological Applications through Isolation and Identification Techniques. Avoided and Avoidable Deaths with the Use of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Italy during the First Two Years of Pandemic. Biogenic Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Mediated by Aronia melanocarpa and Their Biological Evaluation. Converging Pathways: A Review of Pulmonary Hypertension in Interstitial Lung Disease. Effects of Drying Methods on the Phytochemical Contents, Antioxidant Properties, and Anti-Diabetic Activity of Nasturtium officinale R.Br. (Betong Watercress) from Southern Thailand.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1