Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure near the end of life*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: For patients with acute respiratory failure who have declined intubation and resuscitation or have chosen comfort measures only, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may help them achieve important health or personal goals, or merely prolong the dying process. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinicians' attitudes to and stated use of NIV for these patients. METHODS: We developed an instrument to assess the attitudes of intensivists, pulmonologists, and respiratory therapists (RTs) toward the use of NIV for patients with acute respiratory failure near or at the end of life. After assessing its psychometric properties, we mailed the survey to these clinicians at 18 Canadian and two U.S. hospitals. We analyzed factors associated with stated use of NIV for do-not-resuscitate and comfort-measures-only patients. RESULTS: Overall, 104 of 183 (57%) physicians and 290 of 473 (61%) RTs participated. Two thirds of physicians include NIV during life support discussions with do-not-resuscitate patients at least sometimes, and 87% of RTs stated that NIV should be included in such discussions. For patients choosing comfort measures only, almost half of physicians reported including NIV as an option in their discussions at least sometimes, while fewer than half of RTs stated that these discussions should be conducted. Most (>80%) physicians use NIV and most (>80%) RTs are asked to initiate NIV for do-not-resuscitate patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Fewer clinicians report using NIV for do-not-resuscitate patients with underlying malignancy (59% of physicians, 69% of RTs) or for patients choosing comfort measures only (40% of physicians, 51% of RTs; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with do-not-resuscitate orders, many physicians use NIV, and many RTs are asked to initiate NIV, most often to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Further study is needed on the goals of NIV near the end of life, whether these goals are understood by all stakeholders, and how well they are achieved in practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".