MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329807791 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001600

A Pilot Randomized Trial Comparing Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation on Pressure Support Versus Proportional Assist Ventilation*

2016· article· en· W2329807791 on OpenAlexaff
Karen J. Bosma, Brooke Read, Mohammad Nikoo, Philip M. Jones, Fran Priestap, James F. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicineSpontaneous breathing trialVentilation (architecture)Pressure support ventilationRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationDiscontinuationWeaningAnesthesiaEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Despite protocols incorporating spontaneous breathing trials, 31% of ICU patients experience difficult or prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation. Nonfatiguing modes such as pressure support ventilation are recommended. Proportional assist ventilation provides assistance in proportion to patient effort, which may optimize weaning. However, it is not known how proportional assist ventilation performs relative to pressure support ventilation over a prolonged period in the complex ICU setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the physiologic and clinical performance (failure rate), safety, and feasibility of protocols using daily spontaneous breathing trial plus pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation until ventilation discontinuation. DESIGN: Single-center, unblinded pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients intubated greater than 36 hours were randomized if they met eligibility criteria for partial ventilatory support, tolerated pressure support ventilation greater than or equal to 30 minutes, and either failed or did not meet criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to the pressure support ventilation or proportional assist ventilation protocol (PAV+, Puritan Bennett 840; Covidien, Boulder, CO). Both protocols used progressive decreases in level of assistance as tolerated, coupled with daily assessment for spontaneous breathing trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 54 patients randomized, outcome data are available for 50 patients; 27 were randomized to receive proportional assist ventilation and 23 to receive pressure support ventilation. There were no adverse events linked to the study interventions, and protocol violations were infrequent. Recruitment was slower than projected (1.3 patients per month). The median (interquartile range) time from randomization to successful extubation was 3.9 days (2.8-8.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 4.9 days (2.9-26.3 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.39). Time to live ICU discharge was 7.3 days (5.2-11.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 12.4 days (7.5-30.8 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the utility, safety, and feasibility of the weaning protocols and provides important information to guide the design of a future randomized controlled trial comparing weaning from mechanical ventilation on pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations79
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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