Noninvasive Ventilation in Immunocompromised Pediatric Patients: Eight Years of Experience in a Pediatric Oncology Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The experience of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the pediatric setting is limited. The aim of the present study is to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of NPPV in pediatric immunocompromised patient admitted in our PICU (Pediatric Intensive Care Unit) for acute respiratory failure. DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of children admitted to the PICU of Hospital do Cancer between June 1997 and May 2005 requiring ventilatory support. RESULTS: A total of 239 admissions were included. The first mechanical ventilation (MV) technique used was NPPV in 120 (50.2%) patients [noninvasive ventilation (NIV) group] and conventional MV in 119 (49.8%) [invasive ventilation (IV) group]; 25.8% of the patients from the NIV group subsequently required intubation. Patients in the IV group were more likely to be in a severe clinical status. Characteristics associated with severe clinical status were median value for therapeutic intervention scoring system score (37.5 points IV vs. 29 points NIV, P<0.0001), presence of >2 organs failure (63.6% IV vs. 36.4% NIV, P<0.0001), cardiac failure (62.5% IV vs. 37.5% NIV, P<0.0001), and septic shock (63.9% IV vs. 36.1% NIV, P<0.0001). Documented severe pulmonary disease was significantly higher (67.6%) in IV group, P=0.02. Baseline values of arterial pCO2, hypoxemia, arterial pH, and respiratory rate did not differ between the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that independent predictive factors for intubation were solid tumors (P=0.012), cardiovascular dysfunction (P<0.0001), and therapeutic intervention scoring system score >or=40 points (P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Our results encourage the use of NPPV as a first-line treatment in children with malignancies who develops acute respiratory failure, except in those with severe hemodynamic status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".