Different extubation protocols for adult cardiac surgery: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY BMC Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1186/s12871-025-02952-z
Ruo Yu Luo, Ying Ying Fan, Meng Tian Wang, Chao Yun Yuan, Yuan Yuan Sun, Tian Cha Huang, Ji Yong Jing
{"title":"Different extubation protocols for adult cardiac surgery: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ruo Yu Luo, Ying Ying Fan, Meng Tian Wang, Chao Yun Yuan, Yuan Yuan Sun, Tian Cha Huang, Ji Yong Jing","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-02952-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the advancement of ultra-fast track anesthesia, early extubation following cardiac surgery has become a prevailing trend. While there are significant benefits associated with early extubation, its high failure rate warrants further investigation, and the effectiveness of various extubation strategies in cardiac surgery still requires validation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases, encompassing studies without language restrictions. Eligible studies were those that compared the outcomes of various extubation strategies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary outcome was the success rate of the extubation protocol. Secondary outcomes were time to extubation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), complications and mortality rate. Data from 12 studies, which included a total of 1454 participants, were included in the analysis. The pairwise meta-analysis revealed that late extubation was significantly more effective than immediate extubation strategies (relative risk [RR] = 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21-1.91, P = 0.0001). In the network meta-analysis (NMA), the late extubation protocol was associated with a significantly lower risk of extubation failure compared to early extubation and extubation on the table (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.5-1.16; RR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05-0.91). Furthermore, according to the SUCRA plot, late extubation was ranked as the most effective strategy for reducing extubation failure (94%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that a late extubation strategy, as opposed to early (within a specified time frame) or immediate extubation, is correlate with a substantially higher rate of successful extubation. Despite this, the early extubation strategy seems to offer better cost-effectiveness and safety profiles. The selection of an appropriate extubation strategy should be personalized, taking into account the patient's preoperative characteristics and the circumstances encountered during surgery.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study protocol adheres to the PRISMA statement and checklist. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024529051).</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"104"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863475/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-02952-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With the advancement of ultra-fast track anesthesia, early extubation following cardiac surgery has become a prevailing trend. While there are significant benefits associated with early extubation, its high failure rate warrants further investigation, and the effectiveness of various extubation strategies in cardiac surgery still requires validation.

Methods: An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases, encompassing studies without language restrictions. Eligible studies were those that compared the outcomes of various extubation strategies.

Results: Primary outcome was the success rate of the extubation protocol. Secondary outcomes were time to extubation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), complications and mortality rate. Data from 12 studies, which included a total of 1454 participants, were included in the analysis. The pairwise meta-analysis revealed that late extubation was significantly more effective than immediate extubation strategies (relative risk [RR] = 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21-1.91, P = 0.0001). In the network meta-analysis (NMA), the late extubation protocol was associated with a significantly lower risk of extubation failure compared to early extubation and extubation on the table (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.5-1.16; RR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05-0.91). Furthermore, according to the SUCRA plot, late extubation was ranked as the most effective strategy for reducing extubation failure (94%).

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that a late extubation strategy, as opposed to early (within a specified time frame) or immediate extubation, is correlate with a substantially higher rate of successful extubation. Despite this, the early extubation strategy seems to offer better cost-effectiveness and safety profiles. The selection of an appropriate extubation strategy should be personalized, taking into account the patient's preoperative characteristics and the circumstances encountered during surgery.

Trial registration: The study protocol adheres to the PRISMA statement and checklist. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024529051).

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
成人心脏手术的不同拔管方案:一项系统综述、配对和网络荟萃分析。
背景:随着超快道麻醉技术的发展,心脏手术后早期拔管已成为一种趋势。虽然早期拔管有显著的好处,但其高失败率值得进一步研究,各种拔管策略在心脏手术中的有效性仍有待验证。方法:在PubMed、Scopus、Embase和Web of Science数据库中进行广泛的文献检索,包括无语言限制的研究。合格的研究是那些比较各种拔管策略结果的研究。结果:主要观察指标为拔管方案的成功率。次要结局为拔管时间、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间(LOS)、并发症和死亡率。来自12项研究的数据,包括1454名参与者,被纳入分析。两两荟萃分析显示,晚期拔管比立即拔管更有效(相对风险[RR] = 1.52, 95%可信区间[CI] = 1.21-1.91, P = 0.0001)。在网络荟萃分析(NMA)中,与早期拔管和表上拔管相比,晚期拔管方案与拔管失败的风险显著降低相关(RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.5-1.16;Rr = 0.22, 95% ci: 0.05-0.91)。此外,根据SUCRA图,晚期拔管被列为减少拔管失败的最有效策略(94%)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,与早期(在规定的时间范围内)或立即拔管相比,晚期拔管策略与高得多的拔管成功率相关。尽管如此,早期拔管策略似乎提供了更好的成本效益和安全性。适当拔管策略的选择应个性化,考虑到患者的术前特点和手术中遇到的情况。试验注册:研究方案遵循PRISMA声明和检查表。该协议已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024529051)。
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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
期刊最新文献
Intravenous lidocaine reduces systemic inflammation but not myocardial injury following thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a randomized controlled trial. The predictive value of tidal volume challenge-induced hemodynamic changes for fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery with one-lung ventilation: a prospective observational study. Analgesic efficacy of blocking nerve to vastus lateralis muscle versus lateral femoral cutaneous nerve after knee surgeries: a randomized trial. Efficacy and safety of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine for retrolaminar block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Risk factors and prediction model of emergence delirium in children after general anesthesia under preoperative sedation with uniform oral midazolam premedication: a prospective observational cohort study.
×
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:604180095
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