↓ Skip to main content

A randomized clinical trial for the timing of tracheotomy in critically ill patients: factors precluding inclusion in a single center study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomized clinical trial for the timing of tracheotomy in critically ill patients: factors precluding inclusion in a single center study
Published in
Critical Care, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0585-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Diaz-Prieto, Antoni Mateu, Maite Gorriz, Berta Ortiga, Consol Truchero, Neus Sampietro, María Jesus Ferrer, Rafael Mañez

Abstract

IntroductionWe investigated the potential benefits of early tracheotomy performed before day eight of mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with late tracheotomy (from day 14 if it still indicated) in reducing mortality, days of MV, days of sedation and ICU length of stay (LOS).MethodsRandomized controlled trial (RCT) including all-consecutive ICU admitted patients requiring seven or more days of MV. Between days five to seven of MV, before randomization, the attending physician (AP) was consulted about the expected duration of MV and acceptance of tracheotomy according to randomization. Only accepted patients received tracheotomy as result of randomization. An intention to treat analysis was performed including patients accepted for the AP and those rejected without exclusion criteria.ResultsA total of 489 patients were included in the RCT. Of 245 patients randomized to the early group, the procedure was performed for 167 patients (68.2%) whereas in the 244 patients randomized to the late group was performed for 135 patients (55.3%) (P <0.004). Mortality at day 90 was similar in both groups (25.7% versus 29.9%), but duration of sedation was shorter in the early tracheotomy group median 11 days (range 2 to 92) days compared to 14 days (range 0 to 79) in the late group (P <0.02). The AP accepted the protocol of randomization in 205 cases (42%), 101 were included in early group and 104 in the late group. In these subgroup of patients (per-protocol analysis) no differences existed in mortality at day 90 between the two groups, but the early group had more ventilator-free days, less duration of sedation and less LOS, than the late group.ConclusionsThis study shows that early tracheotomy reduces the days of sedation in patients undergoing MV, but was underpowered to prove any other benefit. In those patients selected by their attending physicians as potential candidates for a tracheotomy, an early procedure can lessen the days of MV, the days of sedation and LOS. However, the imprecision of physicians to select patients who will require prolonged MV challenges the potential benefits of early tracheotomy.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN22208087. Registered 27 March 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Engineering 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,590,251
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,247
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,570
of 274,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#28
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.