MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ACCURACY OF HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING USING TRANSPULMONARY THERMODILUTION DURING TOTAL LIQUID VENTILATION (TLV)

2006· article· en· W1996161633 on OpenAlexaffabout
H Walti, R. Robert, J Lebon, Olivier Lesur, Jean‐Paul Praud, Philippe Micheau

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodynamicsAnesthesiaTranspulmonary pressureCardiac outputVascular resistanceCentral venous pressureStroke volumePositive end-expiratory pressureTidal volumePulmonary artery catheterCardiac indexPulmonary arteryMean arterial pressureVentilation (architecture)Arterial bloodBlood volumeMechanical ventilationCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineLungHeart rateLung volumesRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TLV offers clear theorical advantages over gas ventilation (GV); however, hemodynamic effects of TLV are still controversial. Accuracy of transpulmonary thermodilution, a relatively non-invasive method, applicable in a clinical setting, to assess hemodynamic parameters including extravascular lung water volume has not yet been described in TLV. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of TLV on hemodynamic parameters using transpulmonary thermodilution via a femoral artery in a prospective, controlled animal experimental trial. 16 anesthetised, paralysed healthy newborn lambs were conventionally gas ventilated via a tracheotomy and instrumented for continuous monitoring and recording of: (1) Pulmonary artery (PAP) and central venous pressure (CVP) via a 4 Fr Swan-Ganz catheter; (2) Hemodynamic parameters including cardiac index (CI), arterial blood pressure (AP), as well as indexed stroke volume (SVI), systemic vascular resistance (SVRI), intrathoracic blood volume (ITBI) and extravascular lung water (EVLWI) using a transpulmonary thermodilution method via the femoral artery (PC 8000 PICCO monitor, Pulsion Medical System, München, Ge). After baseline recording, the lambs were divided into 2 groups: 1: GV group (n= 8) who remained pressure-limited GV at: Fr 40/min, PiP 15 cm H2O, Peep 5 cm H2O and FiO2 1.0; 2: TLV group (n=8), whose lungs were filled with 30 ml/kg (= FRC) pre-oxygenated PFOB (F2 chemicals, UK) and then ventilated with a volume-controlled tidal liquid ventilator using independent piston pumps (INOLIVENT) at Fr 3–4/min, Vt 25 ml/kg, I/E 1:3, FiO 1.0. Gas exchanges, arterial Lactate/Pyruvate (L/P) ratio and hemodynamic parameters were recorded at 30 min intervals during a 120 min experimental period. The animals were then euthanized and their lungs examined for the presence of perfluorothorax and sampled for subsequent histology. As compared to GV group overall and to baseline GV, TLV animals demonstrated a slight significant increase in PaCO2, and a decrease in PaO2 (Kylstra effect), but gas exchanges were maintained in the targeted range. A slight significant decrease in arterial pH was also observed, with no difference in L/P ratio, however. AP was significantly decreased but maintained in the targeted range. There was no change in PAP or CVP. CI was significantly increased as well as SVI, and SVRI was decreased. In addition, ITBI and EVLWI were significantly increased. However, due to the high thermal conductibility of PFOB, the accuracy of transpulmonary thermodilution leading to an overestimation of CI during TLV is questionable. Nonetheless, this method could be considered to monitor liquid functional residual capacity during TLV. The team is supported in part by the Foundation for Research into Children's Diseases, the Fonds Québécois pour la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies and Pulsion Medical Systems AG, Munich, Germany.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207