MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981165171 · doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0499-8

Heart–lung interactions during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist

2014· article· en· W1981165171 on OpenAlexaff
David Berger, Stefan Bloechlinger, Jukka Takala, Christer A. Sinderby, Lukas Brander

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersInselspital, Universitätsspital BernSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineExpirationDistensionTidal volumeAnesthesiaIsovolumetric contractionVentricular outflow tractDiastoleRespiratory systemBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Assist in unison to the patient's inspiratory neural effort and feedback-controlled limitation of lung distension with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) may reduce the negative effects of mechanical ventilation on right ventricular function. METHODS: Heart-lung interaction was evaluated in 10 intubated patients with impaired cardiac function using esophageal balloons, pulmonary artery catheters and echocardiography. Adequate NAVA level identified by a titration procedure to breathing pattern (NAVAal), 50% NAVAal, and 200% NAVAal and adequate pressure support (PSVal, defined clinically), 50% PSVal, and 150% PSVal were implemented at constant positive end-expiratory pressure for 20 minutes each. RESULTS: NAVAal was 3.1 ± 1.1cmH2O/μV and PSVal was 17 ± 2 cmH20. For all NAVA levels negative esophageal pressure deflections were observed during inspiration whereas this pattern was reversed during PSVal and PSVhigh. As compared to expiration, inspiratory right ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (surrogating stroke volume) was 103 ± 4%, 109 ± 5%, and 100 ± 4% for NAVAlow, NAVAal, and NAVAhigh and 101 ± 3%, 89 ± 6%, and 83 ± 9% for PSVlow, PSVal, and PSVhigh, respectively (p < 0.001 level-mode interaction, ANOVA). Right ventricular systolic isovolumetric pressure increased from 11.0 ± 4.6 mmHg at PSVlow to 14.0 ± 4.6 mmHg at PSVhigh but remained unchanged (11.5 ± 4.7 mmHg (NAVAlow) and 10.8 ± 4.2 mmHg (NAVAhigh), level-mode interaction p = 0.005). Both indicate progressive right ventricular outflow impedance with increasing pressure support ventilation (PSV), but no change with increasing NAVA level. CONCLUSIONS: Right ventricular performance is less impaired during NAVA compared to PSV as used in this study. Proposed mechanisms are preservation of cyclic intrathoracic pressure changes characteristic of spontaneous breathing and limitation of right-ventricular outflow impedance during inspiration, regardless of the NAVA level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00647361, registered 19 March 2008.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207