Role of continuous positive airway pressure to the non-ventilated lung during one-lung ventilation with low tidal volumes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In multiple study populations large tidal volumes (8 - 12 ml/kg) have deleterious effects on lung function in multiple study populations. The accepted approach to hypoxemia during one-lung ventilation is the application of continuous positive airway pressure to the non-ventilated lung first, followed by application of positive end-expiratory pressure to the ventilated lung. To our knowledge the effectiveness of positive end-expiratory pressure or continuous positive airway pressure on maintaining PaO(2) with one-lung ventilation was not studied with smaller tidal volume (6ml/kg) ventilation. Our objective was to compare continuous positive airway pressure of 5 cm H(2)O or positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cm H(2)O during small tidal volume one-lung ventilation. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing elective, open thoracotomy with one-lung ventilation were randomized to continuous positive airway pressure or positive end-expiratory pressure and then crossed over to the other modality. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant higher PaO(2) (141±81.6 vs 112±48.7, p = 0.047) with continuous positive airway pressure than positive end-expiratory pressure while on one-lung ventilation. Two patients desaturated requiring 100% O(2) with both positive end-expiratory pressure and continuous positive airway pressure. On two occasions the surgeon requested the continuous positive airway pressure be discontinued due to lung inflation. CONCLUSION: The use of continuous positive airway pressure of 5 cm H(2)O to the non-ventilated lung while using small tidal volumes for one-lung ventilation improved PaO(2) when compared with positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cm H(2)O to the ventilated lung.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".