MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094987352 · doi:10.1080/10903120902935264

Ventilation Practices and Critical Events during Transport of Ventilated Patients outside of Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2009· article· en· W2094987352 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey M. Singh, Niall D. Ferguson, Russell D. MacDonald, Thomas E. Stewart, Michael J. Schull

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaSedationRetrospective cohort studyTidal volumeCohortEmergency medicineIntensive carePopulationIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about mechanical ventilation practices during patient transport outside of hospital in the civilian setting, although these practices may have clinical impact. Objective. We set out to describe ventilation practice, the use of lung-protective ventilation strategies, administration of sedation and neuromuscular blockade, and related critical events during out-of-hospital transport of ventilated patients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study. Ventilator, pharmacy, and clinical data were extracted from the database of the provincial transport medicine agency in Ontario, Canada. Patients at risk for acute lung injury were identified by explicit screening criteria and lung-protective ventilation was assessed according to evidence-based thresholds. Critical events occurring during transport consisting of clinical deterioration or resuscitative procedures were recorded. RESULTS. We identified 1,735 mechanically ventilated adults who received out-of-hospital transport. Volume control and pressure control were the most commonly used ventilation modes. The median tidal volume delivered during transport was 500 mL (interquartile range 450-600) with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cmH(2)O (5-7) and peak inspiratory pressure of 24 cmH(2)O (20-29). Most patients (92%) were ventilated with peak pressures < or = 35 cmH(2)O; 22% of patients were ventilated with PEEP < 5 cmH(2)O. Ventilation in patients at risk of acute lung injury was not significantly different, and 68% of this subgroup was ventilated within lung-protective thresholds. Sedation was administered in 1,235 transports (71.2%) with frequent repeat administration. Neuromuscular blockade was administered in 385 transports (22.2%). Critical events occurred during 297 (17.1%) transports, due primarily to new-onset hypotension (n = 208). New in-transit hypotension was independently associated with sedative administration. CONCLUSIONS: In-transit mechanical ventilation practices are variable, although patient exposure to potentially injurious pressures and volumes is uncommon. The application of PEEP is modest. In-transit hypotension is common and associated with sedative administration. The extent to which these practices impact patient outcome is unclear.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207