The role of early extubation on short‐term outcomes after liver transplantation – A systematic review, meta‐analysis and expert recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early extubation in liver transplantation (LT) and its potential benefits such as reduction in pulmonary complications and enhanced postoperative recovery have been described. The extent of the effect of early extubation on short-term outcomes after LT across the published literature is to the best of our knowledge unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether early extubation improves immediate and short-term outcomes after LT and to provide expert recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term outcomes after early extubation in LT was performed (CRD42021241402), following PRISMA guidelines and quality of evidence (QOE) and recommendations grading using the GRADE approach, derived from an international experts panel. Endpoints were reintubation rates, pulmonary and other complications/organ dysfunction, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Of 831 screened articles, 20 observational studies with a total of 3573 patients addressing early extubation protocols were included, of which 12 studies compared results after early versus deferred extubation. Reintubation and pulmonary complication rates were lower in the early versus deferred extubation groups (OR 0.29, CI 0.22-0.39; OR 0.17, CI 0.09-0.33, respectively). ICU and hospital LOS were shorter in eight out of eight and seven out of eight comparative studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early extubation after LT is associated with improved short-term outcomes after LT and should be performed in the majority of patients (QOE; Moderate to low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Randomized controlled trials using standardized definitions of early extubation and short-term outcomes are needed to demonstrate causality, validate and allow comparability of the results.
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 | 0.046 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".