Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2023
Comparison of positive pressure extubation with traditional extubation in critically ill patients - a randomised control study.
Trial report in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Investigating the effects of pressure support ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure during extubation on respiratory system complications.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo extubation methods are commonly used in the intensive care unit (ICU): the traditional method with endotracheal suctioning and the positive- pressure method without suctioning. Better physiological outcomes were found in lab studies using the latter, as the air passing between the endotracheal tube and the larynx pushes out the collected subglottic secretions, which can be suctioned.
methods70 mechanically ventilated patients in a tertiary ICU were randomised into 2 groups of 35 patients each. At the end of the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), the positive pressure extubation (PPE) group was given a pressure support of 15 cm H 2 O and a positive end expiratory pressure of 10 cm H 2 O for 5 minutes while the other group (traditional extubation - TE) was extubated directly. We compared the lung ultrasound scores (LUS), chest X-ray findings, alveolar arterial oxygen gradient changes, adverse clinical events, ICU-free days and reintubation rates between the two groups.
resultsMedian LUS at the end of the SBT was similar between the two groups. However, the median post-extubation LUS at 30 minutes, 6 hours, 24 hours in the PPE group [5 (4-8) ( P = 0.04), 5 (3-8) ( P = 0.02), 4 (3-7) ( P = 0.02), respectively] were significantly lower compared to the TE group [6 (6-8), 6 (5-7.5), 6 (5-7.5), respectively]. There was a persistent lowering of the scores even at the end of 24 hours in the PPE group, while the percentage of patients without adverse clinical events was significantly higher (80% vs. 57.14%, P = 0.04).
conclusionsThe study shows that positive pressure extubation is a safe procedure which improves aeration and reduces adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.