Evidence Hub

Case-Mix, Care Processes, and Outcomes in Medically-Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation in a Low-Resource Setting from Southern India: A Prospective Clinical Case Series

Balasubramanian Karthikeyan, T. Kadhiravan, S. Deepanjali, R. P. Swaminathan

PLoS ONE, 2015

237 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Background Mechanical ventilation is a resource intensive organ support treatment, and historical studies from low-resource settings had reported a high mortality. We aimed to study the outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in a contemporary low-resource setting. Methods We prospectively studied the characteristics and outcomes (disease-related, mechanical ventilation-related, and process of care-related) in 237 adults mechanically ventilated for a medical illness at a teaching hospital in southern India during February 2011 to August 2012. Vital status of patients discharged from hospital was ascertained on Day 90 or later. Results Mean age of the patients was 40 ± 17 years; 140 (51%) were men. Poisoning and envenomation accounted for 98 (41%) of 237 admissions. In total, 87 (37%) patients died in-hospital; 16 (7%) died after discharge; 115 (49%) were alive at 90-day assessment; and 19 (8%) were lost to follow-up. Weaning was attempted in 171 (72%) patients; most patients (78 of 99 [79%]) failing the first attempt could be weaned off. Prolonged mechanical ventilation was required in 20 (8%) patients. Adherence to head-end elevation and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis were 164 (69%) and 147 (62%) respectively. Risk of nosocomial infections particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia was high (57.2 per 1,000 ventilator-days). Higher APACHE II score quartiles (adjusted HR [95% CI] quartile 2, 2.65 [1.19–5.89]; quartile 3, 2.98 [1.24–7.15]; quartile 4, 5.78…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 237 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