Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Capnographic monitoring of respiratory activity improves safety of sedation for endoscopic cholangiopancreatography and ultrasonography (Qadeer et al., Gastroenterology 2009 [ 1 ]) Pulse oximetry has become the standard of care for the detection of hypoxemia during endoscopic procedures, despite the fact that significant alveolar hypoventilation may be undetected by measurement of arterial oxygen saturation (SPO 2 ), particularly when supplemental oxygen is administered. Exhaled carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) monitoring (capnography), may be a better option for respiratory depression in all patients who receive sedation, especially deep sedation. Recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists suggest that monitoring for apnea using capnography is a useful adjunct in the assessment of ventilatory status of patients undergoing sedation and analgesia [ 2 ]. Qadeer et al. conducted a single-centered, randomized, double-blind study, which demonstrated that capnographic monitoring of respiratory activity improves patient safety by reducing the frequency of hypoxemia, severe hypoxemia, and apnea [ 1 ]. Patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with procedural sedation using a combination of opioid and benzodiazepine were included. They were randomly assigned to either a study arm in which the endoscopy team was blinded to capnography or an open arm in which the team was prompted of capnographic changes as measured by an independent observer of the capnography system. The primary end point was the occurrence of hypoxemia, with secondary end points including occurrence of severe hypoxemia, apnea, and oxygen supplementation. For both primary (46 % vs. 69 %; P < 0.001; [ Fig. 1 ]) and secondary end points, there was significant reduction in the open (capnography) arm. Fig. 1 Kaplan-Meier plot displaying time to hypoxemia with capnography in blinded and open arms. This study was well designed with an adequate sample size and used hypoxemia, a clinically relevant factor, as the primary end point. Hypoxemia has been used as a surrogate marker in previous studies, as it has been characterized as a sentinel critical event for subsequent adverse events [ 3 ]. Even more concerning is the higher rate of recurrent hypoxemic events in the non-capnography group after supplemental oxygen was administered (37.8 % vs. 17.5 %; P = 0.01). This study enrolled patients undergoing elective ERCP/EUS with ASA class 1 – 3 who were sedated using an opioid/benzodiazepine combination. Could similar results be confirmed for other endoscopic procedures, for ASA class 4 – 5 individuals, or for propofol sedation? Only additional studies can confirm if ventilation monitoring with capnography may be even more beneficial in sicker patients and those receiving propofol. Whether or not capnography is ready for widespread clinical implementation is unclear. In this study, the use of capnography required an independent observer to monitor for abnormalities. To incorporate this system into routine use, the endoscopy team would need to be trained to understand capnographic abnormalities, and further development of an automated computer interpretation with alarm signals would be required to alert the endoscopy team of abnormal readings. These challenges do not seem insurmountable and appear to deserve further study and development, as capnography does appear to have the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».