Evidence Hub

Association between early administration of mucoactive agents and in-hospital mortality in patients with pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation: a nationwide cohort study

Akira Sasaki, M. Nakajima, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Y. Sasabuchi, H. Ohbe, R. Kaszynski, Y. Kimura, K. Morita et al.

Journal of Intensive Care, 2025

10,942 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

In patients with pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation, increased airway secretions are associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, but the effect of mucoactive agents remains unclear. The present study aimed to investigate the association between early administration of mucoactive agents and in-hospital mortality in patients with pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a nationwide inpatient database. Adult patients were eligible if they had a primary diagnosis of pneumonia and required invasive mechanical ventilation within 2 days of admission, with ventilation continued for ≥ 2 days between April 2012 and March 2023. Patients were divided into those who received at least one mucoactive agent within 2 days after the initiation of mechanical ventilation (mucoactive agent group) and those who did not (control group). Mucoactive agents included ambroxol (oral), bromhexine (oral, intravenous and nebulized), fudosteine (oral), carbocisteine (oral) and N-acetylcysteine (nebulized). We performed a propensity score overlap weighting analysis to compare in-hospital mortality. The number of ventilator-free days at 28 days was assessed as a secondary outcome. We also performed sensitivity analyses using inverse probability of treatment weighting, generalized estimating equations, and doubly robust methods. Eligible patients (n = 10,942) were categorized into the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 10,942 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free