Ventilatory Strategies for Hypoxemia During Cardiac Surgery: Survey Validation for Anesthesiologists in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perioperative hypoxemia is common in cardiac surgeries, and atelectasis is the main cause. Besides, we can mention extracorporeal circulation (ECC), dissection of internal thoracic arteries, and previous clinical status of the patient among others as its causes. The present study elaborated an anonymous questionnaire to observe ventilatory strategies for hypoxemia in cardiac surgeries adopted by five thousand anesthesiologists all over the country. Questionnaires were sent via e-mail for five thousand anesthesiologists in Brazil. Out of the questionnaires sent, 81 valid responses were received. Among the answers, 65 (80%) anesthesiologists use volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), while 16 (20%) prefer pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). The tidal volume (Vt) used is lower than 10 mL.kg-1, for 46 (61%) versus 20 (30%) who adopt a Vt greater than 10 mL.kg-1. Forty-seven (58%) use PEEP and 15 (21%) use FiO2 above 60%. In the case of intraoperative hypoxemia, 20.9% increase or introduce PEEP, 70.3% increase the FiO2, 19.7% use alveolar recruitment maneuvers, 13.5% increase the tidal volume, and 20.9% check for the presence of failures in the anesthesia equipment. Responses were sent from 15 states. The conducts described in the questionnaires are compatible with those of the international literature. Adjusting the questionnaires format and the way to approach anesthesiologists, new studies could be undertaken. A hipoxemia perioperatória ocorre frequentemente em cirurgia cardíaca e a atelectasia é sua principal causa. Além disso, podemos citar como causas circulação extracorpórea (CEC), dissecção de artérias torácicas internas, status clínico prévio do paciente, entre outras. O presente estudo elaborou um questionário anônimo para observar as estratégias ventilatórias frente à hipoxemia em cirurgia cardíaca adotadas por cinco mil anestesiologistas distribuídos no país. Foram enviados questionários por e-mail a cinco mil anestesiologistas do Brasil. Dos questionários enviados, foram recebidas 81 respostas válidas. Dentre as respostas, 65 (80%) anestesiologistas fazem uso da ventilação controlada a volume (VCV) frente a 16 (20%) que preferem ventilação controlada à pressão (PCV). O volume (Vt) corrente utilizado é inferior a 10 mL.kg-1 para 46 (61%) contra 29 (39%) que adotam um Vt maior que 10 mL.kg-1. Quarenta e sete (58%) usam PEEP e 17 (21%) utilizam FiO2 acima de 60%. No caso de hipoxemia intraoperatória, 20,9% aumentam ou introduzem PEEP, 70,3% aumentam a FiO2, 19,7% realizam manobra de recrutamento alveolar, 13,5% aumentam o volume-corrente e 20,9% realizam checagem de falhas no aparelho de anestesia. As respostas foram enviadas de 15 estados. As condutas descritas nos questionários respondidos são compatíveis com a literatura internacional. Com ajuste no formato do questionário e na abordagem aos anestesiologistas, novos estudos poderão ser realizados. La hipoxemia perioperatoria ocurre frecuentemente en la cirugía cardíaca, y la atelectasia es su principal causa. Además, podemos citar como causas la circulación extracorpórea (CEC), disección de arterias torácicas internas, status clínico previo del paciente, entre otras. El presente estudio elaboró un cuestionario anónimo para observar las estrategias ventilatorias frente a la hipoxemia en cirugía cardíaca adoptadas por cinco mil anestesiólogos en todo el país. Fueron enviados cuestionarios por e-mail a cinco mil anestesiólogos de Brasil. De los cuestionarios enviados, se recibieron 81 respuestas válidas. Entre las respuestas, 65 (80%) anestesiólogos usan ventilación controlada a volumen (VCV) frente a 16 (20%) que prefieren la ventilación controlada a presión (PCV). El volumen (Vt) corriente utilizado es inferior a 10 mL.kg-1 para 46 (61%) contra 29 (39%) que adoptan un Vt mayor que 10 mL.kg-1. Cuarenta y siete (58%) usan PEEP y 17 (21%) utilizan FiO2 por encima del 60%. En el caso de hipoxemia intraoperatoria, 20,9% aumentan o introducen PEEP, un 70,3% aumentan la FiO2, un 19,7% realizan maniobra de reclutamiento alveolar, un 13,5% aumentan el volumen corriente y un 20,9% realizan el chequeo de fallas en el aparato de anestesia. Las respuestas fueron enviadas desde 15 estados. Las conductas descritas en los cuestionarios respondidos están a tono con la literatura internacional. Nuevos estudios se podrán hacer ajustando el formato del cuestionario y el abordaje a los anestesiólogos.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".