MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976827453 · doi:10.1177/1060028013503121

Use of Sedation and Neuromuscular Blockers in Critically Ill Adults Receiving High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation

2013· article· en· W1976827453 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Burry, Katherine Seto, Louise Rose, Stephanie C. Lapinsky, Sangeeta Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationCritically illMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaHigh-frequency ventilationVentilation (architecture)Intensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nearly all patients receive sedation and neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). OBJECTIVE: To describe analgo-sedation and NMB use prior to and during HFOV in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: Retrospective single-center study of 131 consecutive adults whose care was managed with HFOV from 2002 to 2011. RESULTS: During the first 4 days of HFOV, 89% and 95% of patients received sedation and opioids, respectively. Upon HFOV initiation, 119 (90.8%) patients received fentanyl doses higher than 200 µg/h; of these, 48 also received more than 20 mg/h of midazolam. Analgo-sedation doses increased significantly over time such that doses were double by day 3. Factors independently associated with fentanyl doses higher than 200 µg/h were NMB ever used (OR 4.43; 95% CI 1.26-15.65, p = 0.02), pH less than 7.15 (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.22-3.5, p = 0.007), worsening partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.10, p = 0.04), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.97, p = 0.009). Deep sedation was commonly administered when NMBs were not being used, with 99.2% of sedation-agitation scores of 1 or 2. Eighty-six patients (65.6%) received NMBs and use was greatest on day 1 (59.5%). Train-of-Four was measured every hour for 53.4% of patients; 29.2% of the measurements were 0 of 4. NMB use declined over the 10-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: High analgo-sedation doses were associated with APACHE II scores, worsening gas exchange, and NMB use. Two thirds of patients received NMBs; use was highest on day 1 and subsequently declined. The percentage of patients who received NMB during HFOV in our study was lower than that previously reported. Future research should evaluate patient outcomes with and without use of NMBs, as well as the potential to manage patients with less sedation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207