Skip to main content
. 2026 Aug 27;13:1917271. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2026.1917271

Table 2.

Comparison of outcome indicators between the two groups.

Variables Total (n = 511) EOS group (n = 139) Non-EOS group
(n = 372)
P
Death, n (%) 0.018
No 484 (94.72) 137 (98.56) 347 (93.28)
Yes 27 (5.28) 2 (1.44) 25 (6.72)
ICU admission, n (%) <0.001
No 289 (56.56) 104 (74.82) 185 (49.73)
Yes 222 (43.44) 35 (25.18) 187 (50.27)
Invasive mechanical ventilation, n (%) 0.044
No 478 (93.54) 135 (97.12) 343 (92.20)
Yes 33 (6.46) 4 (2.88) 29 (7.80)
Non-invasive mechanical ventilation, n (%) <0.001
No 352 (68.88) 115 (82.73) 237 (63.71)
Yes 159 (31.12) 24 (17.27) 135 (36.29)
In-hospital invasive MV duration, ha 259.50 (112.50, 372.50) 297.50 (253.25, 566.25) 209.50 (100.00, 372.50) 0.363
In-hospital non-invasive MV duration, hb 124.50 (76.50, 211.00) 133.50 (39.25, 207.25) 124.00 (78.00, 212.50) 0.621
Length of hospital stay 12.00 (9.00, 15.00) 11.00 (8.00, 14.00) 12.00 (9.00, 16.00) 0.057

Data are presented median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) or n (%). ICU, intensive care unit; MV, mechanical ventilation; h, hours.

a

4 patients in the EOS group and 29 patients in the non-EOS group received mechanical ventilation. Duration of mechanical ventilation was compared in these patients between two groups.

b

24 patients in the EOS group and 135 patients in the non-EOS group received non-invasive ventilation. Duration of non-invasive ventilation was compared in these patients between two groups.