Effects of Endotracheal Tube Suctioning on Arterial Oxygen Tension and Heart Rate Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the autonomic mechanisms underlying changes in heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) responses to endotracheal tube (ETT) suctioning and to compare the open versus closed methods of ETT suctioning on these measures and on arterial oxygen tension. Eighteen orally intubated participants, 33 to 82 years of age (M = 60 years), were randomized for the order of suctioning method. Arterial oxygen tension (PaO2) was measured before suctioning and 30 s and 5 min following suctioning. Beat-to-beat HR and arterial blood pressure data were collected for 10-min periods before and after suctioning. HR and SBP measures were analyzed before suctioning and 1 min and 5 min following suctioning. Although there were no significant effects of ETT suctioning on the autonomic mechanisms of HR modulation and no significant differences between the two methods of suctioning, ETT suctioning resulted in an increase in HR, SBP, and PaO2. However, there was a decrease in the parasympathetic nervous system indicator of HR variability (HRV) following open suctioning. All patients in this study maintained a PaO2 level 80 mm Hg, which may account for our lack of significant autonomic changes. This suggests that hyperoxygenation with 100% oxygen for a minimum of 1 min (or 20 breaths), as delivered by preoxygenation modes available on most microprocessor ventilators, should be the method of choice for all hyperoxygenation procedures to avoid a decrease in PaO2 following suctioning.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".