Comparison of the Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Measurement Study Done in Two Hospital Centers in Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Benefits of early tracheostomy (ET) versus late tracheostomy (LT) while treating critically ill patients have been a matter of big debate in the last few years. Several meta-analyses tried to prove the benefits of ET in decreasing the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and the mortality rates. However, no clear guidelines are available yet. This study will focus on comparing the outcomes of early tracheostomy versus late one. Methods This is a retrospective study done in two medical and surgical ICUs at "Sacre-Coeur Hospital" and "Rafik Hariri University Hospital" at Beirut, where we reviewed various files of patients who underwent elective tracheostomy for prolonged MV from January 2015 to June 2016. ET and LT were assumed to be procedures performed respectively before and after 10 days of MV. These two groups were subdivided based on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score calculated in the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Data about short- and long-term mortality, the duration of MV, and the length of ICU stay were collected and compared. Results From a total of 45 patients, only 25 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of whom 12 (48%) underwent ET and 13 (52%) patients underwent LT. In patients with APACHE II <25 (6 ET and 6 LT), ET was associated with 50% long-term mortality, 9.6 days mean duration of MV and 23 days mean length of ICU stay compared to 57% (P-value=0.05), 78 days (P-value=0.04) and 79 days (P-value=0.012) of respective parameters in LT groups. In patients with APACHE II >25 (6 ET and 7 LT), ET was associated with 50% long-term mortality, 8.6 days mean duration of MV and 24 days mean length of ICU stay compared to 84%, 105 days, 84 days of respective parameter in LT groups. Conclusions Our results are suggestive of the superiority of ET because it was associated with a reduced duration of MV, a decrease in the length of ICU stay, and, most importantly, a lower long-term mortality rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".