Dataset Information

Early versus late tracheotomy in ICU patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate whether early tracheotomy can improve clinical endpoints compared with late tracheotomy in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched in August 2019. The investigated outcomes were calculated using relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) through the random-effects model for categories and continuous data, respectively.

Results

The electronic searches yielded 2289 records, including 15 RCTs comprising a total of 3003 patients and found to be relevant for the final quantitative analysis. The summary RRs that indicated early versus late tracheotomy were not associated with the risk of short-term mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.74-1.03; P?=?.114) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78-1.04; P?=?.156). Moreover, early tracheotomy was associated with shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (SMD: -1.81; 95% CI: -2.64 to -0.99; P?ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis suggests that early tracheotomy can reduce the length of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation duration, but the timing of the tracheotomy was not associated with the short-term clinical endpoints in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

SUBMITTER: Deng H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7837817 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early versus late tracheotomy in ICU patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Deng Hongsheng H Fang Qiang Q Chen Kun K Zhang Xiaoling X

Medicine 20210101 3

<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate whether early tracheotomy can improve clinical endpoints compared with late tracheotomy in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.<h4>Methods</h4>The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched in August 2019. The investigated outcomes were calculated using relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean di ...[more]

PMID: 33546065

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of systematic early mobilization in improving muscle strength and physical function in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsWe conducted a two-stage systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of early mobilization initiated within 7 days after ICU admission compared with late mobilization, standard early mobilization or no mobilization. Priority outcomes were Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW), 6-min walk test (6MWT), proportion of patients reaching independence, time needed until walking, SF-36 Physical Function Domain Score (PFS) and SF-36 Physical Health Component Score (PCS). Meta-analysis was conducted where sufficient comparable evidence was available. We evaluated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 12 eligible RCTs contributing data from 1304 participants. Two RCTs were categorized as comparing systematic early with late mobilization, nine with standard early mobilization and one with no mobilization. We found evidence for a benefit of systematic early mobilization compared to late mobilization for SF-36 PFS (MD 12.3; 95% CI 3.9-20.8) and PCS (MD 3.4; 95% CI 0.01-6.8), as well as on the proportion of patients reaching independence and the time needed to walking, but not for incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.38-1.03) or MRC-SS. For systematic early compared to standard early mobilization, we found no statistically significant benefit on MRC-SS (MD 5.8; 95% CI - 1.4 to 13.0), incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.63-1.27), SF-36 PFS (MD 8.1; 95% CI - 15.3 to 31.4) or PCS (MD - 2.4; 95% CI - 6.1 to 1.3) or other priority outcomes except for change in 6MWT from baseline. Generally, effects appeared stronger for systematic early compared to late mobilization than to standard early mobilization. We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes as very low to low.ConclusionThe evidence regarding a benefit of systematic early mobilization remained inconclusive. However, our findings indicate that the larger the difference in the timing between the intervention and the comparator, the more likely an RCT is to find a benefit for early mobilization.Study registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019122555).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous dilatational tracheotomy (PDT) has become an established procedure in intensive care units (ICU). However, the safety of this method has been under debate given the growing number of critically ill patients with high bleeding risk receiving anticoagulation, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or even a combination of both, i.e. triple therapy. Therefore, the purpose of this study, including such a high proportion of patients on antithrombotic therapy, was to investigate whether PDT in high-risk ICU patients is associated with elevated procedural complications and to analyse the risk factors for bleeding occurring during and after PDT.MethodsPDT interventions conducted in ICUs at 12 European sites between January 2016 and October 2019 were retrospectively analysed for procedural complications. For subgroup analyses, patient stratification into clinically relevant risk groups based on anticoagulation and antiplatelet treatment regimens was performed and the predictors of bleeding occurrence were analysed.ResultsIn total, 671 patients receiving PDT were included and stratified into four clinically relevant antithrombotic treatment groups: (1) intravenous unfractionated heparin (iUFH, prophylactic dosage) (n = 101); (2) iUFH (therapeutic dosage) (n = 131); (3) antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and/or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor) with iUFH (prophylactic or therapeutic dosage) except for triple therapy (n = 290) and (4) triple therapy (DAPT with iUFH in therapeutic dosage) (n = 149). Within the whole cohort, 74 (11%) bleedings were reported to be procedure-related. Bleeding occurrence during and after PDT was independently associated with low platelet count (OR 0.73, 95% CI [0.56, 0.92], p = 0.009), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI [1.01, 3.03], p = 0.047) and previous stroke (OR 2.13, 95% CI [1.1, 3.97], p = 0.02).ConclusionIn this international, multicenter study bronchoscopy-guided PDT was a safe and low-complication airway management option, even in a cohort of high risk for bleeding on cardiovascular ICUs. Low platelet count, chronic kidney disease and previous stroke were identified as independent risk factors of bleeding during and after PDT but not triple therapy.

Project description:IntroductionThe EPaNIC randomized controlled multicentre trial showed that postponing initiation of parenteral nutrition (PN) in ICU-patients to beyond the first week (Late-PN) enhanced recovery, as compared with Early-PN. This was mediated by fewer infections, accelerated recovery from organ failure and reduced duration of hospitalization. Now, the trial's preplanned cost analysis (N = 4640) from the Belgian healthcare payers' perspective is reported.MethodsCost data were retrieved from individual patient invoices. Undiscounted total healthcare costs were calculated for the index hospital stay. A cost tree based on acquisition of new infections and on prolonged length-of-stay was constructed. Contribution of 8 cost categories to total hospitalization costs was analyzed. The origin of drug costs was clarified in detail through the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. The potential impact of Early-PN on total hospitalization costs in other healthcare systems was explored in a sensitivity analysis.ResultsICU-patients developing new infection (24.4%) were responsible for 42.7% of total costs, while ICU-patients staying beyond one week (24.3%) accounted for 43.3% of total costs. Pharmacy-related costs represented 30% of total hospitalization costs and were increased by Early-PN (+608.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.01). Notably, costs for ATC-J (anti-infective agents) (+227.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.02) and ATC-B (comprising PN) (+220.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.006) drugs were increased by Early-PN. Sensitivity analysis revealed a mean total cost increase of 1,210.00 EUR/patient (p = 0.02) by Early-PN, when incorporating the full PN costs.ConclusionsThe increased costs by Early-PN were mainly pharmacy-related and explained by higher expenditures for PN and anti-infective agents. The use of Early-PN in critically ill patients can thus not be recommended for both clinical (no benefit) and cost-related reasons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00512122.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have examined the effect of the initiation time of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI), but the findings remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically and quantitatively compare the impact of early versus late initiation of RRT on the outcome of patients with CSA-AKI.MethodsFour databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase) were systematically searched from inception to June 2018 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Two investigators independently performed the literature search, study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used to examine the impact of RRT initiation time on all-cause mortality (primary outcome). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the level of evidence.ResultsWe identified 4 RCTs with 355 patients that were eligible for inclusion. Pooled analyses indicated no difference in mortality for patients receiving early and late initiation of RRT (relative risk [RR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.33 to 1.12). However, the results were not confirmed by TSA. Similarly, early RRT did not reduce the length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU) (mean difference [MD] = -1.04; 95% CI = -3.34 to 1.27) or the LOS in the hospital (MD = -1.57; 95% CI = -4.62 to 1.48). Analysis using GRADE indicated the certainty of the body of evidence was very low for a benefit from early initiation of RRT.ConclusionEarly initiation of RRT had no beneficial impacts on outcomes in patients with CSA-AKI. Future larger and more adequately powered prospective RCTs are needed to verify the benefit of reduced mortality associated with early initiation of RRT.Trial registrationThis trial is registered with PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084465, registered on 11 February 2018.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Dataset Information

Early versus late tracheotomy in ICU patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Early versus late tracheotomy in ICU patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets