Evidence Hub

Impact of tracheostomy on clinical outcomes in ventilated patients with severe pneumonia: a propensity-matched cohort study

Hayoung Seong, Hyojin Jang, Wanho Yoo, Saerom Kim, S. Kim, Kwangha Lee

The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 2025

1,078 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background/Aims Tracheostomy is a crucial intervention for severe pneumonia patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). However, debate persists regarding the influence of tracheostomy timing and performance on long-term survival outcomes. This study utilized propensity score matching to assess the impact of tracheostomy timing and performance on patient survival outcomes. Methods A retrospective observational study employing propensity score matching was conducted of respiratory intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent prolonged acute MV due to severe pneumonia from 2008 to 2023. The primary outcome was the 90-day cumulative mortality rate, with secondary outcomes including ICU medical resource utilization rates. Results Out of 1,078 patients, 545 underwent tracheostomy with a median timing of 7 days. The tracheostomy group exhibited lower 90-day cumulative mortality and a higher survival probability (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.63) than the no-tracheostomy group. The tracheostomy group had higher ICU medical resource utilization rates and medical expenditures. The early tracheostomy group (≤ 7 days) had lower ICU medical resource utilization rates and medical expenditures than the late tracheostomy group (> 7 days). However, there were no significant differences in the 90-day cumulative mortality rate and survival probability based on tracheostomy timing (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70–1.28). Conclusions Tracheostomy in patients…

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: 1,078 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