Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 24;11:149. doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00938-x

Table 1.

Main outcomes after injury

Outcomes after injury Means and proportions Overall (n = 14,637) ICU (n = 13,763) Rehab unit (n = 874) Number of studies Subgroup differences
p-value# p-value# (excluding Branco et al. and Anand et al.)
Weaning success, n (%) Crude 1299/1942 (66.9%) 674/1068 (63.1%) 625/874 (71.5%) 24 (10 + 14)
Meta-analytic 67.8% [54.2–79%] 63.1% [45.2–77.9%] 71.5% [51.1–85.8%] 0.5059
Partial weaning, n (%) Crude 75/195 (38.5%) 2/44 (4.5%) 73/151 (48.3%) 6 (1 + 5)
Meta-analytic 31.9% [7.4–73.3%] 4.5% [1.1–16.4%] 43.3% [11.1–82.4%] 0.0582
Partial or total weaning, n (%) Crude 1351/1942 (69.6%) 676/1068 (63.3%) 675/874 (77.2%) 24 (10 + 14)
Meta-analytic 75.4% [63.9–84.1%] 63.7% [45.6–78.6%] 82.3% [69.6–90.4%] 0.0610
Tracheostomy, n (%) Crude 8344/13371 (62.4%)* 8142/13165 (61.8%)* 202/206 (98.1%) 27 (19 + 8)
Meta-analytic 93.9%* [77.2–98.6%] 80.9% [51.4–94.4%] 100% [9.1–100%] 0.2201 0.1829
Decannulation, n (%) Crude 150/291 (51.5%) 33/131 (25.2%) 117/160 (73.1%) 10 (3 + 7)
Meta-analytic 69.4% [39.3–88.8%] 30% [10.9–60.1%] 82.9% [53–95.4%] 0.0135
Duration of mechanical ventilation, days Meta-analytic 30.9 [24.8–37.1] 26.9 [19.8–34.1] 46.1 [28.3–63.9] 22 (14 + 8) 0.0503 0.0850
26.9 [19.8–34.1] 96.5 [65.1–127.8]§ 22 (14 + 8)  < 0.0001  < 0.0001
ICU/rehab days Meta-analytic 25.7 [20.2–31.2] 22.9 [17.3–28.6] 78.3 [49.1–107.6] 22 (20 + 2) 0.0003 0.0003
Hospital days Meta-analytic 44 [37.3–50.7] 44 [37.3–50.7] 13 (13 + 0) - -
Pneumonia, n (%) Crude 814/1927 (42.1%) 738/1630 (45.3%) 76/297 (25.6%) 21 (14 + 7)
Meta-analytic 38.3% [25.7–52.8%] 40.0% [27.4–54.0%] 35.5% [11.3–70.5%] 0.8132 -
Mortality, n (%) Crude 1223/13756 (8.9%) 1210/13331 (9.1%) 13/425 (3.1%) 25 (20 + 5)
Meta-analytic 6.3% [4.1–9.6%] 7.7% [5.2–11.2%] 0.8% [0–18.5%] 0.1751 0.1825

Meta-analytic means and proportions were computed through the “metamean” and “metaprop” functions (R package “meta”), respectively

*Crude and meta-analytic proportions differed appreciably because of the very large sample size of one of the included studies, Branco et al. [32] (5256 patients, weighting for 73% of the total in the crude calculation), which enrolled patients with very low prevalence of tracheostomy (21%) and whose weighting in the pooled meta-analytic result was more comparable with those of the other studies

#p-values yielded by the subgroup analyses: ICUs vs rehabilitation units with and without Branco et al. [32] and Anand et al. [35]

§Including duration of mechanical ventilation prior to admission and during the stay in rehabilitation