Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation for Respiratory Failure after Extubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The need for reintubation after extubation and discontinuation of mechanical ventilation is not uncommon and is associated with increased mortality. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation has been suggested as a promising therapy for patients with respiratory failure after extubation, but a single-center, randomized trial recently found no benefit. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation on mortality in this clinical setting. METHODS: Patients in 37 centers in eight countries who were electively extubated after at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation and who had respiratory failure within the subsequent 48 hours were randomly assigned to either noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation by face mask or standard medical therapy. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients with similar baseline characteristics had been randomly assigned to either noninvasive ventilation (114 patients) or standard medical therapy (107 patients) when the trial was stopped early, after an interim analysis. There was no difference between the noninvasive-ventilation group and the standard-therapy group in the need for reintubation (rate of reintubation, 48 percent in both groups; relative risk in the noninvasive-ventilation group, 0.99; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.30). The rate of death in the intensive care unit was higher in the noninvasive-ventilation group than in the standard-therapy group (25 percent vs. 14 percent; relative risk, 1.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.03 to 3.20; P=0.048), and the median time from respiratory failure to reintubation was longer in the noninvasive-ventilation group (12 hours vs. 2 hours 30 minutes, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation does not prevent the need for reintubation or reduce mortality in unselected patients who have respiratory failure after extubation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".