MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased Total Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Does Not Improve Hypoxemia during One-Lung Ventilation

2002· article· en· W2020796159 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Slinger, Marelise Kruger, Karen McRae, Timothy Winton

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePositive end-expiratory pressureFunctional residual capacityARDSPulmonary complianceLung volumesVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaHypoxemiaLungOxygenationRespiratory physiologyPlateau pressureMechanical ventilationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Reply:—On behalf of my co-authors I would like to thank Drs. Yokata and Sari for their correspondence and for sharing our interest in the pathophysiology of one-lung ventilation (OLV) as it applies to intraoperative management of patients during thoracic anesthesia. Their letter highlights three issues that arise out of our study of the interrelation of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance with oxygenation during one-lung anesthesia:(1) Would it be more useful to use the inflection point derived from the expiratory limb of the pressure-volume (PV) curve of the ventilated lung, rather than the inspiratory lower inflection point (LIP), as a surrogate marker for the functional residual capacity (FRC) and the optimal endexpiratory lung volume? This is a possibility. As they mention, the expiratory inflection point has been demonstrated to be a useful guide for ventilatory management of patients with ARDS in the intensive care unit. Unfortunately, our experimental protocol did not allow for measurements on the expiratory portion of the PV curve. Although there are important differences in the respiratory mechanics between ARDS patients and those having intraoperative one-lung anesthesia, this would be a worthwhile question to study.(2) The level of auto-PEEP does not correlate with Pao2during one-lung ventilation (OLV). This is correct. A comparison of the PV curves of two patients with low levels of auto-PEEP in figure 2 and figure 3 of our manuscript demonstrates this point. 1The patient in figure 2 had an identifiable LIP, the application of PEEP raised the end-expiratory pressure closer to the LIP level and the patient had an improvement of Pao2with PEEP. The patient in figure 3 did not have a measurable LIP. Presumably this patient and others with similar PV patterns do not get down to the level of their FRC at end-expiration and are not helped by applied PEEP. So it is not merely the presence of auto-PEEP but also the underlying lung mechanics that determine whether a patient will benefit from PEEP during OLV.(3) Gravity and position may not be an important determinant of blood flow redistribution during OLV. The authors quote the study of Mure et al ., 2which was performed in closed-chest dogs to back up their point. While it is correct that we now appreciate that anatomic factors have a major contribution to the distribution of pulmonary blood flow, it is not clear how relevant this is to clinical OLV in the open-chest human. In fact, a recent report has confirmed the importance of operative position on oxygenation during OLV. A study by Watanabe et al ., 5demonstrated that there was a significant difference in oxygenation during OLV dependent on the patients position, with the mean Pao2in the lateral position exceeding that in the supine position by greater than 100 mmHg. Since the publication of our manuscript another study has been reported which validates our findings. Fujiwara et al . 3applied PEEP to the ventilated lung or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to the nonventilated lung in a series of patients during OLV. They found that PEEP and CPAP were equivalent therapies and that both significantly increased Pao2during OLV. This is very different from the previous findings of Capan et al ., 4who showed that CPAP clearly increased mean Pao2during OLV while PEEP decreased mean Pao2. The difference between these two studies is in the patient populations. Capan studied patients with moderate or severe COPD having thoracotomies for lung cancer surgery. Fujiwara studied patients having OLV for esophageal surgery who are more likely to have normal pulmonary function. This supports our thesis that patients with normal or supra-normal lung elastic recoil (e.g . restrictive lung mechanics: pulmonary fibrosis, obesity) are the patients most likely to reach an end-expiratory lung volume below their FRC, and thus are the most likely to benefit from PEEP to the ventilated lung during OLV.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207