Pressures Exerted by Endobronchial Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief BACKGROUND: High endotracheal cuff pressures have been shown to cause high mucosal pressures and a reduction in mucosal blood flow, with the risk of mucosal ischemia. We aimed to directly measure the pressure exerted by the bronchial cuffs of double-lumen tubes (DLT) and by the cuffs of three new designs of endobronchial blocker (EBB). METHODS: Using a validated in vitro model and a previously described technique, we measured the static pressures exerted by the cuff of DLTs and EBBs with 1 mL increments in cuff volume until maximum inflation was achieved. The study was repeated under dynamic conditions of simulated positive pressure ventilation. RESULTS: The pressures exerted by the cuffs of DLTs ranged from 16–155 mm Hg. Pressures exerted by the EBB cuffs ranged from 39–194 mm Hg. At intra-cuff volumes required to create a seal to 25 cm H2O positive pressure, the pressures exerted by the cuffs of all the devices were <30 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: A transmitted pressure <30 mm Hg has been recommended to avoid mucosal injury. Our study shows that at clinically relevant cuff volumes, the pressures exerted by the cuffs do not exceed the recommended safe limit. IMPLICATIONS: High pressures exerted by the cuffs of endobronchial devices may reduce mucosal blood flow, leading to mucosal injury. This study shows that at clinical cuff volumes, the pressures exerted by the cuffs do not exceed the recommended safe limit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".