Evidence Hub

Twenty-four-hour mechanical power variation rate is associated with mortality among critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure: a retrospective cohort study

Y. Chi, Qing Zhang, Si-Yi Yuan, Zhan-Qi Zhao, Y. Long, Huai-Wu He

BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 2021

14,463 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

Objectives Defined as the energy applied to the respiratory system by ventilator, mechanical power (MP) of ventilation reflects the risk of ventilation-induced lung injury. This study aims to explore the relationship between dynamic changes in MP and prognosis in critically ill patients. Methods This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and MP > 10 J/min on admission in the ICU were included. MP (J/min) was calculated as 0.098 × minute ventilation (L/min) × [(peak inspiratory pressure + positive end-expiratory pressure)/2] and the MP variation rate (%) as ([baseline MP − 24-h MP]/baseline MP) × 100. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether MP decreased 24 h after admission (MP-improved group defined as 24-h MP variation rate > 0% vs. MP-worsened group defined as 24-h MP variation rate ≤ 0%). Results In total, 14,463 patients were screened between January 2015 and June 2020, and finally, a study cohort of 602 patients was obtained. The MP-improved group had a lower ICU mortality rate than the MP-worsened group (24% vs. 36%; p = 0.005). The 24-h MP variation rate was associated with ICU mortality after adjusting for confounders (odds ratio, 0.906 [95% CI 0.833–0.985]; p = 0.021), while baseline MP ( p = 0.909) and 24-h MP ( p = 0.059) were not. All MP components improved in the MP-improved group, while minute ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure contributed…

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: 14,463 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