Retraction and republication—Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

On June 27, 2014, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine published online a systematic review and meta-analysis of early versus late tracheostomy. 1 Siempos II Ntaidou TK Filippidis FT Choi AMK Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2014; (published online June 27.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70125-0 PubMed Google Scholar Following publication, our attention was drawn to some possible data discrepancies affecting the findings for intensive-care-unit mortality and we issued an expression of concern highlighting the details on Oct 14, 2014. 2 The Lancet Respiratory MedicineExpression of concern. Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2: 871 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar The editors have discussed the corrections that are necessary in the paper, and the findings of a panel that we convened, and decided that because of the extent of the changes necessary, the previous version of the Article should be retracted and a corrected version republished after re-review. The corrected version of this paper can therefore be found in this issue and the changes made are highlighted in both versions of the paper in an appendix of the Article. Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality and pneumonia of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysisThe synthesised evidence suggests that early tracheostomy is not associated with lower mortality in the intensive-care unit than late or no tracheostomy. However, early, compared with late or no, tracheostomy might be associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia; a finding that could question the present practice of delaying tracheostomy beyond the first week after translaryngeal intubation in mechanically ventilated patients. Nevertheless, the scarcity of a beneficial effect on long-term mortality and the potential complications associated with tracheostomy need careful consideration; thus, further studies focusing on long-term outcomes are warranted. Full-Text PDF Early tracheostomy in critically ill patients: still too fastThe most common strategy of airway management to aid invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive-care unit involves placement of an endotracheal tube.1 This translaryngeal approach, which makes oral care, communication, and feeding challenging, is often poorly tolerated unless sedation is administered.2 Thus, clinicians might consider exchange of this tube for a tracheostomy if a prolonged period of ventilation is expected. The anticipated benefits of tracheostomy include enhanced comfort, improved pulmonary toilet, and decreased sedation requirements. Full-Text PDF RETRACTED: Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysisThe synthesised evidence suggests that early tracheostomy is associated with lower mortality in the intensive-care unit than late or no tracheostomy; a finding that might question the present practice of delaying tracheostomy beyond the first week after translaryngeal intubation in mechanically ventilated patients. However, the scarcity of a beneficial effect on long-term mortality and the potential complications associated with tracheostomy need careful consideration; thus, further studies focusing on long-term outcomes are warranted. Full-Text PDF Expression of concernFollowing the publication online on June 27, 2014, of the Article “Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Siempos and colleagues, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine received a letter from Dr Gusmao-Flores and Dr Barreto (Hospital Universitário Professor Edgard Santos, UFBA, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil) that highlighted some possible data discrepancies related to intensive-care unit (ICU) mortality for one trial (Zheng and colleagues) included in the paper. Full-Text PDF