Total liquid ventilation efficacy in an ovine model of severe meconium aspiration syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that total liquid ventilation enables a more effective and better tolerated lavage than a bronchoalveolar lavage performed with diluted surfactant in a newborn ovine model of severe acute meconium aspiration syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, interventional study. SETTING: Animal research laboratory at the Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé de l'université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. SUBJECTS: Twenty-three newborn lambs, <4 days, 2.5-4.0 kg in weight. INTERVENTIONS: Animals were intubated, anesthetized, and paralyzed. Catheters were placed in the femoral artery and jugular vein. Severe meconium aspiration syndrome was obtained by instillation of a 25% dilution of human meconium in saline (1 mL/kg × 2). Lambs were then randomized in 12 total liquid ventilation-bronchoalveolar lavage (minute ventilation of 160 mL/kg/min with perfluorodecalin) vs. 11 bronchoalveolar lavage performed with diluted surfactant (conventional ventilation + 30 mL/kg in two aliquots bronchoalveolar lavage with 5 mg/mL BLES surfactant). Surviving lambs were ventilated for a total of 4 hrs and euthanized. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Arterial blood gases, systemic and pulmonary hemodynamic parameters using the thermodilution method, percentage of recovered meconium, and lung histologic scores. Total liquid ventilation bronchoalveolar lavage enabled a significantly higher PaO2 throughout the experiment. PaCO2, pH, and hemodynamic parameters were comparable for both groups except for an increase in mean pulmonary arterial pressure during total liquid ventilation. Total liquid ventilation bronchoalveolar lavage allowed for 43 ± 14% of the instilled meconium to be removed vs. 28 ± 10% for bronchoalveolar lavage performed with diluted surfactant (p = .022). Lung histologic analysis showed no difference between total scores. CONCLUSIONS: Total liquid ventilation bronchoalveolar lavage is well tolerated and more effective in terms of meconium washout and gas exchange than bronchoalveolar lavage performed with diluted surfactant in this experimental model of severe meconium aspiration syndrome. These positive results open the way to further experiments in our ovine model, ultimately aiming at a clinical trial with total liquid ventilation bronchoalveolar lavage to treat severe meconium aspiration 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".