MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A high positive end-expiratory pressure, low tidal volume ventilatory strategy improves outcome in persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome: A randomized, controlled trial*

2006· article· en· W2139350281 on OpenAlexaff
Jesús Villar, Robert M. Kacmarek, Lina Pérez‐Méndez, Armando Aguirre‐Jaime

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePositive end-expiratory pressureRandomized controlled trialPositive-Pressure RespirationAcute respiratory distressTidal volumeRespiratory distressAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineOutcome (game theory)Respiratory systemCardiologyMechanical ventilationInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: It has been shown in a two-center study that high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and low tidal volume (LTV) improved outcome in ARDS. However, that study involved patients with underlying diseases unique to the study area, was conducted at only two centers, and enrolled a small number of patients. We similarly hypothesized that a ventilatory strategy based on PEEP above the lower inflection point of the pressure volume curve of the respiratory system (Pflex) set on day 1 with a low tidal volume would result in improved outcome in patients with severe and persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Network of eight Spanish multidisciplinary intensive care units (ICUs) under the acronym of ARIES (Acute Respiratory Insufficiency: España Study). PATIENTS: All consecutive patients admitted into participating Spanish ICUs from March 1999 to March 2001 with a diagnosis of ARDS were considered for the study. If 24 hrs after meeting ARDS criteria, the Pao2/Fio2 remained < or =200 mm Hg on standard ventilator settings, patients were randomized into two groups: control and Pflex/LTV. INTERVENTIONS: In the control group, tidal volume was 9-11 mL/kg of predicted body weight (PBW) and PEEP > or =5 cm H2O. In the Pflex/LTV group, tidal volume was 5-8 mL/kg PBW and PEEP was set on day 1 at Pflex + 2 cm H2O. In both groups, Fio2 was set to maintain arterial oxygen saturation >90% and Pao2 70-100 mm Hg, and respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain Paco2 between 35 and 50 mm Hg. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was stopped early based on an efficacy stopping rule as described in the methods. Of 103 patients who were enrolled (50 control and 53 Pflex), eight patients (five in control, three in Pflex) were excluded from the final evaluation because the random group assignment was not performed in one center according to protocol. Main outcome measures were ICU and hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, and nonpulmonary organ dysfunction. ICU mortality (24 of 45 [53.3%] vs. 16 of 50 [32%], p = .040), hospital mortality (25 of 45 [55.5%] vs. 17 of 50 [34%], p = .041), and ventilator-free days at day 28 (6.02 +/- 7.95 in control and 10.90 +/- 9.45 in Pflex/LTV, p = .008) all favored Pflex/LTV. The mean difference in the number of additional organ failures postrandomization was higher in the control group (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A mechanical ventilation strategy with a PEEP level set on day 1 above Pflex and a low tidal volume compared with a strategy with a higher tidal volume and relatively low PEEP has a beneficial impact on outcome in patients with severe and persistent ARDS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations701
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207