Time‐directed extubation protocol vs usual care: Postoperative complications ‐ Myocardial infarction
Time‐directed extubation protocol showed no clear difference in postoperative myocardial infarction compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Time‐directed extubation protocol vs usual care Postoperative myocardial infarction · adult cardiac surgical patients Time‐directed extubation protocol showed no clear difference in postoperative myocardial infarction compared with usual care (low certainty). Fast‐track cardiac care for adult cardiac surgical patients (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.59 [0.27, 1.31] | 8 studies · 1378 participants | Low |
Time‐directed extubation protocol vs usual care Postoperative complications ‐ Myocardial infarction · Adults undergoing cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass surgery, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement) Time‐directed extubation protocol showed no clear difference in postoperative complications ‐ Myocardial infarction compared with usual care (moderate certainty). Fast‐track cardiac care for adult cardiac surgical patients (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD003587.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.94 [0.55, 1.6] | 7 studies · 1326 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fast‐track cardiac care for adult cardiac surgical patients 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.