Continuous versus bolus furosemide therapy in critically ill patients with fluid overload
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in a Brazilian ICU.Methods: This prospective observational, non-interventional study, included all consecutive patients with ARDS criteria [1] admitted in the ICU of a Brazilian tertiary hospital, between January 1997 and September 2001.Were collected in a prospective fashion the following variables: age, gender, APACHE II score at ICU admission and at ARDS diagnosis, cause of ARDS, presence of AIDS, cancer and immunosuppression, occurrence of barotrauma, performance of traqueostomy, mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of stay (LOS) in ICU and in hospital.The lung injury score (LIS) [2] was used to quantify the degree of pulmonary injury in the first week of ARDS.Results: There was 2182 patients (P) admitted in ICU during the study period, of whom 141 (6.46%) had ARDS criteria.Seventy-six (54%) were men, the mean age was 46 ± 18 years, APACHE II 18 ± 7 and 19 ± 7 at admission and at ARDS diagnosis, respectively.Septic shock accounted for 42% (60 P) of the ARDS causes, sepsis 22% (31 P), diffuse pulmonary infection 16% (23 P), aspiration pneumonia 11% (15 P), non-septic shock 5% (7 P) and others 4% (5 P).Ten percent (14 P) had AIDS, 30% (43 P) cancer and 25% (36 P) immunosuppression.All patients were mechanically ventilated with Tidal Volume between 4 and 8 ml/kg.Only 3.5% (5 P) had barotrauma and 10% (14 P) performed traqueostomy.Mortality rate was 79% in the ICU.The patients required 12 ± 10 days on MV, ranging from 1 to 55 days.The LOS in ICU and hospital was 14 ± 13 (1-69) days and 28 ± 32 (1-325) days, respectively.There was a time delay of 3.7 ± 4.5 days between admission in ICU and the onset of ARDS.The Murray score (mean ± SD) was 3.2 ± 0.4, 3 ± 0.5, 3 ± 0.5, 2.9 ± 0.6, 2.8 ± 0.7, 2.7 ± 0.7 and 2.6 ± 0.8 in the first 7 days, respectively.Conclusions: ARDS in our hospital has a similar incidence of reports in the USA and Europe.There was a higher mortality, which could be explained by a high incidence of infection causes of ARDS, mainly septic shock, and elevated combined occurrence of AIDS, cancer and immunosuppression, along the degree of LIS.The incidence of barotrauma was low, as a consequence of the current mechanical ventilation strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".