↓ Skip to main content

Early versus late tracheostomy after decompressive craniectomy for stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Early versus late tracheostomy after decompressive craniectomy for stroke
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0269-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Catalino, Feng-Chang Lin, Nathan Davis, Keith Anderson, Casey Olm-Shipman, J. Dedrick Jordan

Abstract

Stroke patients requiring decompressive craniectomy are at high risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Tracheostomy placement may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Predicting which patients will require tracheostomy and the optimal timing of tracheostomy remains a clinical challenge. In this study, the authors compare key outcomes after early versus late tracheostomy and develop a useful pre-operative decision-making tool to predict post-operative tracheostomy dependence. We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data. We developed a propensity-weighted decision tree analysis to predict tracheostomy requirement using factors present prior to surgical decompression. In addition, outcomes include probability functions for intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and mortality, based on data for early (≤ 10 days) versus late (> 10 days) tracheostomy. There were 168 surgical decompressions performed on patients with acute ischemic or spontaneous hemorrhagic stroke between 2010 and 2015. Forty-eight patients (28.5%) required a tracheostomy, 35 (20.8%) developed VAP, and 126 (75%) survived hospitalization. Mean ICU and hospital length of stay were 15.1 and 25.8 days, respectively. Using GCS, SOFA score, and presence of hydrocephalus, our decision tree analysis had 63% sensitivity and 84% specificity for predicting tracheostomy requirement. The early group had fewer ventilator days (7.3 versus 15.2, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital length of stay (28.5 versus 44.4 days, p = 0.014). VAP rates and mortality were similar between the two groups. Withdrawal of treatment interventions shortly post-operatively confounded mortality outcomes. Early tracheostomy shortens duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay after surgical decompression for stroke, but it did not impact mortality or VAP rates. A decision tree is a practical tool that may be helpful in guiding pre-operative decision-making with patients' families.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 25 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Engineering 4 7%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 29 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,539,072
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#267
of 542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,889
of 449,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 449,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.