MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A protocol for high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in adults: Results from a roundtable discussion*

2007· article· en· W2145832996 on OpenAlexaff
H Fessler, Stephen Derdak, Niall D. Ferguson, David N. Hager, Robert M. Kacmarek, Bruce Thompson, Roy G. Brower

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)High-frequency ventilationVentilation (architecture)Intensive care medicineAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationAlternative medicineMeteorologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Ventilator settings typically used for high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFO) in adults provide acceptable gas exchange but may not take best advantage of its lung-protective aspects. We provide guidelines for HFO in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome that should optimize the lung-protective characteristics of this ventilation mode. DESIGN: Roundtable discussions, iterative revisions, and consensus. SETTING: Five academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Participants addressed how to best maintain ventilation through combinations of oscillation pressure amplitude, frequency, and the use of an endotracheal tube cuff leak, and to maintain oxygenation through combinations of recruitment maneuvers, mean airway pressure, and oxygen concentration. The guiding principles were to provide lung protective ventilation by minimizing the size of tidal volumes, and balance the risks and benefits of lung recruitment and distension. MAIN RESULTS: HFO may provide smaller tidal volumes and more complete lung recruitment than conventional modes. To optimize these features, we recommend use of the maximum pressure-oscillation amplitude coupled with the highest tolerated frequency, targeting a pH of only 7.25-7.35. This will yield a smaller tidal volume than typical HFO settings where frequency is limited to 6 Hz or less and pressure amplitude is submaximal. Lung recruitment can be achieved with the use of recruitment maneuvers, especially during the first several days of HFO. Recruitment may be augmented or sustained with generous mean airway pressures. These may either be chosen from a table of recommended mean airway pressure and oxygen concentration combinations, or individually titrated based on the oxygenation response of each patient. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of the goals and tactics of HFO use may better protect against ventilator-associated lung injury. Further clinical trials are needed to compare the effects on patient outcome of the best use of HFO compared to the most protective use of conventional modes in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations127
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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