Comparison of superior vena caval and femoroiliac venous pressure measurements during normal and inverse ratio ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the agreement between superior vena caval pressure (SVCP) and femoroiliac venous pressure (FIVP) measurements by using short (<20 cm) femoral catheters commonly used in an adult intensive care unit. In addition, the effects of two modes of ventilation on agreement were assessed. DESIGN: Measurements of central venous pressure were recorded from both sites by using the same pressure transducer connected to the catheters via a three-way stopcock. SVCP and FIVP were recorded at 5-min intervals for 40 mins with the patient in the supine position. Recordings were taken from ventilated patients during a randomized crossover sequence of normal and inverse ratio ventilation (IRV). Analyses included Pearson's correlation (r), intraclass correlation (ri), Bland-Altman plots, and repeated measures analysis of variance with crossover tests for period and period-treatment interactions. SETTING: Adult intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Adult intensive care patients. MEASUREMENTS: Central venous pressure. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled in the study, giving 162 paired measurements; r was .97 (p < .0001), and ri was .96. The bias for SVCP-FIVP measurements was -0.75 mm Hg (95% confidence interval = -1.31 to -0.18), with 95% limits of agreement of -3.30 to 1.81 mm Hg. Seventeen patients were suitable for randomization to normal ratio ventilation and IRV. IRV significantly increased SVCP and FIVP (p < .002). Tests for the effect of mode of ventilation on agreement (p = .36), for period (p = .26), and for period-treatment interaction (p = .84) were not significant. CONCLUSION: The study showed excellent overall agreement with acceptable clinical agreement for SVCP and FIVP measurements that was not affected by changing the mode of ventilation. IRV significantly increased central venous pressure measurements from both catheter sites but had no effect on overall agreement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".