Comparison of Two Levels of Pressure Support Ventilation on Success of Extubation in Preterm Neonates: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) is one of the modes of mechanical ventilation that can be used alone as a weaning strategy in neonates. However, studies on the appropriate pressure level for this mode in neonates are limited. OBJECTIVES: Because the use of adequate pressure support in this mode, keeping the appropriate neonate's tidal volume, and preventing the respiratory complications, this study was aimed to compare extubation failure in the two levels of pressure support ventilation of 10 and 14 cmH2O when removing the neonates from the ventilator. MATERIALS & METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial 50 premature infants of 27-37 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) were under mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours, were randomly assigned to two groups. One group was extubated in PSV mode with pressure of 14 cmH2O and the other with 10 cmH2O. Extubation failure rate and complications such as pneumothorax, death and respiratory parameters were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Twenty five neonates in each group were assessed. Weaning time, extubation failure rate, and mean airway pressure was lesser in PSV of 10 cmH2O group than Level of 14 cmH2O and those differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Difference between work of breathing, ventilation time, pneumothorax and mortality rate between two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that extubation of the neonates using 10 CmH2O in PSV mode increases the success rate of extubation. Although when Volume- assured PSV can be used, it is more logical to use it for guaranteeing tidal volume, but using the appropriate level of pressure support when the PSV mode is used alone is inevitable and further studies are necessary to demonstrate the level of pressure in this mode.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".