MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Recruiting Maneuvers in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Ventilated with Protective Ventilatory Strategy

2002· article· en· W2128033833 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSTidal volumeAnesthesiaFraction of inspired oxygenPlateau pressureOxygenationMean airway pressureLung volumesLungCardiologyPositive end-expiratory pressureRespiratory systemMechanical ventilationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A lung-protective ventilatory strategy with low tidal volume (VT) has been proposed for use in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Alveolar derecruitment may occur during the use of a lung-protective ventilatory strategy and may be prevented by recruiting maneuvers. This study examined the hypothesis that the effectiveness of a recruiting maneuver to improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS would be influenced by the elastic properties of the lung and chest wall. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with ARDS were studied during use of the ARDSNet lung-protective ventilatory strategy: VT was set at 6 ml/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and inspiratory oxygen fraction (Fio2) were set to obtain an arterial oxygen saturation of 90-95% and/or an arterial oxygen partial pressure (Pao2) of 60- 80 mmHg (baseline). Measurements of Pao2/Fio2, static volume-pressure curve, recruited volume (vertical shift of the volume-pressure curve), and chest wall and lung elastance (EstW and EstL: esophageal pressure) were obtained on zero end-expiratory pressure, at baseline, and at 2 and 20 min after application of a recruiting maneuver (40 cm H2O of continuous positive airway pressure for 40 s). Cardiac output (transesophageal Doppler) and mean arterial pressure were measured immediately before, during, and immediately after the recruiting maneuver. Patients were classified a priori as responders and nonresponders on the basis of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a 50% increase in Pao2/Fio2 after the recruiting maneuver. RESULTS: Recruiting maneuvers increased Pao2/Fio2 by 20 +/- 3% in nonresponders (n = 11) and by 175 +/- 23% (n = 11; mean +/- standard deviation) in responders. On zero end-expiratory pressure, EstL (28.4 +/- 2.2 vs. 24.2 +/- 2.9 cm H2O/l) and EstW (10.4 +/- 1.8 vs. 5.6 +/- 0.8 cm H2O/l) were higher in nonresponders than in responders (P < 0.01). Nonresponders had been ventilated for a longer period of time than responders (7 +/- 1 vs. 1 +/- 0.3 days; P < 0.001). Cardiac output and mean arterial pressure decreased by 31 +/- 2 and 19 +/- 3% in nonresponders and by 2 +/- 1 and 2 +/- 1% in responders (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Application of recruiting maneuvers improves oxygenation only in patients with early ARDS who do not have impairment of chest wall mechanics and with a large potential for recruitment, as indicated by low values of EstL.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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