Observational studyJournal of anesthesia2025
Risk of postoperative pneumonia after extubation with the positive pressure versus normal pressure technique: a single-center retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of anesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA normal pressure extubation technique (no lung inflation before extubation), proposed by the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists to prevent droplet infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, could theoretically increase postoperative pneumonia incidence compared with a positive pressure extubation technique (lung inflation before extubation). However, the normal pressure extubation technique has not been adequately evaluated. This study compared postoperative pneumonia incidence between positive and normal pressure extubation techniques using a dataset from the University of Tsukuba Hospital.
methodsIn our hospital, the extubation methods changed from positive to normal pressure extubation techniques on March 3, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, we compared the risk of postoperative pneumonia between the positive (April 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019) and normal pressure extubation techniques (March 3, 2020 to March 31, 2022) using propensity score analyses. Postoperative pneumonia was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD-10) codes (J13-J18), and we reviewed the medical records of patients flagged with these ICD-10 codes (preoperative pneumonia and ICD-10 codes for prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions for pneumonia).
resultsWe identified 20,011 surgeries, including 11,920 in the positive pressure extubation group (mean age 48.2 years, standard deviation [SD] 25.2 years) and 8,091 in the normal pressure extubation group (mean age 47.8 years, SD 25.8 years). The postoperative pneumonia incidences were 0.19% (23/11,920) and 0.17% (14/8,091) in the positive and normal pressure extubation groups, respectively. The propensity score analysis using inverse probability weighting revealed no significant difference in postoperative pneumonia incidence between the two groups (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.91, P = 0.94).
conclusionsThese results indicated no increased risk of postoperative pneumonia associated with the normal pressure extubation technique compared with the positive pressure extubation technique. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinical trial number: UMIN000048589 https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000055364.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39283488What 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.