MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092909187 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1215350

Preparation, sedation, and monitoring

2010· letter· en· W2092909187 on OpenAlexaff
D. Yu, Lawrence Hookey

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapnographyMedicinePulse oximetrySedationHypoventilationHypoxemiaAnesthesiaRespiratory monitoringApneaOxygen saturationIntensive care medicineAmerican society of anesthesiologistsRespiratory systemOxygenInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capnographic monitoring of respiratory activity improves safety of sedation for endoscopic cholangiopancreatography and ultrasonography (Qadeer et al., Gastroenterology 2009 [ 1 ]) Pulse oximetry has become the standard of care for the detection of hypoxemia during endoscopic procedures, despite the fact that significant alveolar hypoventilation may be undetected by measurement of arterial oxygen saturation (SPO 2 ), particularly when supplemental oxygen is administered. Exhaled carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) monitoring (capnography), may be a better option for respiratory depression in all patients who receive sedation, especially deep sedation. Recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists suggest that monitoring for apnea using capnography is a useful adjunct in the assessment of ventilatory status of patients undergoing sedation and analgesia [ 2 ]. Qadeer et al. conducted a single-centered, randomized, double-blind study, which demonstrated that capnographic monitoring of respiratory activity improves patient safety by reducing the frequency of hypoxemia, severe hypoxemia, and apnea [ 1 ]. Patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with procedural sedation using a combination of opioid and benzodiazepine were included. They were randomly assigned to either a study arm in which the endoscopy team was blinded to capnography or an open arm in which the team was prompted of capnographic changes as measured by an independent observer of the capnography system. The primary end point was the occurrence of hypoxemia, with secondary end points including occurrence of severe hypoxemia, apnea, and oxygen supplementation. For both primary (46 % vs. 69 %; P < 0.001; [ Fig. 1 ]) and secondary end points, there was significant reduction in the open (capnography) arm. Fig. 1 Kaplan-Meier plot displaying time to hypoxemia with capnography in blinded and open arms. This study was well designed with an adequate sample size and used hypoxemia, a clinically relevant factor, as the primary end point. Hypoxemia has been used as a surrogate marker in previous studies, as it has been characterized as a sentinel critical event for subsequent adverse events [ 3 ]. Even more concerning is the higher rate of recurrent hypoxemic events in the non-capnography group after supplemental oxygen was administered (37.8 % vs. 17.5 %; P = 0.01). This study enrolled patients undergoing elective ERCP/EUS with ASA class 1 – 3 who were sedated using an opioid/benzodiazepine combination. Could similar results be confirmed for other endoscopic procedures, for ASA class 4 – 5 individuals, or for propofol sedation? Only additional studies can confirm if ventilation monitoring with capnography may be even more beneficial in sicker patients and those receiving propofol. Whether or not capnography is ready for widespread clinical implementation is unclear. In this study, the use of capnography required an independent observer to monitor for abnormalities. To incorporate this system into routine use, the endoscopy team would need to be trained to understand capnographic abnormalities, and further development of an automated computer interpretation with alarm signals would be required to alert the endoscopy team of abnormal readings. These challenges do not seem insurmountable and appear to deserve further study and development, as capnography does appear to have the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.009

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207