Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation in Patients With Milder Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of the addition of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) to standard medical therapy on length of hospital stay among patients presenting with mild exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requiring hospitalization. DESIGN: Randomized controlled unblinded study with concealed allocation. SETTING: Respiratory ward of a single-center, academic, tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a prior history of COPD who presented with a recent onset of shortness of breath and a pH of > 7.30 were eligible for inclusion in the study. INTERVENTIONS: NPPV daily for 3 days for intervals of 8, 6, and 4 hours, respectively, plus standard therapy, versus standard therapy alone. MEASUREMENTS: Borg dyspnea index at baseline, 1 hour, and daily. Length of hospital stay, endotracheal intubation, hospital survival. RESULTS: We found that NPPV was generally poorly tolerated, with only 12 of 25 patients wearing it for the prescribed 3 days. With the exception of a decrease in dyspnea at 1 hour and 2 days, significant between-group differences were not seen for any measured variable. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the addition of NPPV to standard therapy in milder COPD exacerbations remains unclear. P(aCO(2)) related to this increased WOB that requires intervention with some form of assisted ventilation. All patients developing an exacerbation of COPD that requires hospitalization have an increased WOB and, we hypothesize, potentially develop some degree of associated respiratory muscle fatigue. We further hypothesize that adding intermittent NPPV during the initial days of hospital stay would afford respiratory muscle rest for patients with milder COPD exacerbations and that this rest would allow these patients to recover more quickly and to be discharged home earlier. The objective of this trial was to determine whether the addition of NPPV to standard therapy during the first 3 days of admission in milder COPD exacerbations could decrease length of hospital stay.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".