Association between patient race/ethnicity and invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Importance Differential use of therapies for respiratory failure according to patient race/ethnicity may represent health inequity and could impact patient survival. Objective Measure the association between patient race/ethnicity and the use of invasive ventilation, and the impact of any association on survival. Design Retrospective cohort analysis using a Bayesian multistate model that adjusted for baseline covariates and time-varying severity. Setting Multicenter study using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) and Phillips eICU (eICU) databases from the USA. Participants Non-intubated adults receiving oxygen within the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Exposure Patient race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, white). Main outcomes and measures Primary output was the cause-specific hazard ratio (HR) of invasive ventilation for patient race/ethnicity. Secondary output was change in 28-day survival mediated by differences in invasive ventilation rate. We reported posterior means and 95% credible intervals (CrI). Results We studied 38,263 patients, 52% (20,033) from MIMIC-IV and 48% (18,230) from eICU, 2% Asian (892), 11% Black (4,289), 5% Hispanic (1,964), and 81% white (31,923). Invasive ventilation occurred in 3,511 (9.2%), and 2,869 (7.5%) died. The rate of invasive ventilation was lower in Asian (HR 0.82, CrI 0.70 to 0.95), Black (HR 0.78, CrI 0.71 to 0.86), and Hispanic (HR 0.70, CrI 0.61 to 0.79) patients as compared to white patients. For the average patient, lower rates of invasive ventilation did not mediate differences in survival. For a reference patient with inspired oxygen (FiO2) varied from 0.5 to 1.0, the change in survival mediated by lower rates of invasive ventilation ranged from probable benefit (probability 0.82 for Asian patients, 0.91 for Black patients, and 0.93 for Hispanic patients) at FiO2 0.5 to probable harm (probability 0.87 for Asian patients, 0.92 for Black patients, and 0.97 for Hispanic patients) at FiO2 1.0, although the mean absolute changes in mortality were all less than 1.5%. Conclusions Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients had a lower rate of invasive ventilation than white patients. The changes in 28-day survival mediated by this difference ranged from slight benefit at lower inspired oxygen fractions to slight harm at inspired oxygen fraction of 1.0, and there was no difference in survival for the average patient. Key Points Question What is the association between patient race/ethnicity and the use of invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure, and what is the impact of any differences on survival? Findings We studied 38,263 patients from two US databases, who were 2% Asian (892), 11% Black (4,289), 5% Hispanic (1,964), and 81% white (31,118). Invasive ventilation occurred in 3,511 (9.2%), and 2,869 (7.5%) died. The hazard ratio (HR) for invasive ventilation was lower in Asian (HR 0.82, CrI 0.70 to 0.95), Black (HR 0.78, CrI 0.71 to 0.86), and Hispanic (HR 0.70, CrI 0.61 to 0.79) patients as compared to white patients. For the average patient, race/ethnicity differences in invasive ventilation rates did not mediate differences in 28-day survival. For the reference patient, at inspired oxygen fractions up to 0.9, lower invasive ventilation rates mediated a modest survival benefit, whereas at inspired oxygen fraction of 1.0, the lower invasive ventilation rates mediated a modest survival decrease, although the absolute changes were all less than 1.5%. Meaning Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients had a lower rate of invasive ventilation than white patients. Although this difference had no impact on 28-day survival for the average patient, the change in survival mediated by lower rates of invasive ventilation could range from slight benefit at lower inspired oxygen fractions to slight harm at inspired oxygen fraction of 1.0.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».