Inhibitory Effect of Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation on Gastroesophageal Reflux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-invasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation can lead to esophageal insufflations and in turn to gastric distension. The fact that the latter induces transient relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter implies that it may increase gastroesophageal refluxes. We previously reported that nasal Pressure Support Ventilation (nPSV), contrary to nasal Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (nNAVA), triggers active inspiratory laryngeal closure. This suggests that esophageal insufflations are more frequent in nPSV than in nNAVA. The objectives of the present study were to test the hypotheses that: i) gastroesophageal refluxes are increased during nPSV compared to both control condition and nNAVA; ii) esophageal insufflations occur more frequently during nPSV than nNAVA. Polysomnographic recordings and esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance pHmetry were performed in nine chronically instrumented newborn lambs to study gastroesophageal refluxes, esophageal insufflations, states of alertness, laryngeal closure and respiration. Recordings were repeated without sedation in control condition, nPSV (15/4 cmH2O) and nNAVA (~ 15/4 cmH2O). The number of gastroesophageal refluxes recorded over six hours, expressed as median (interquartile range), decreased during both nPSV (1 (0, 3)) and nNAVA [1 (0, 3)] compared to control condition (5 (3, 10)), (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the esophageal insufflation index did not differ between nPSV (40 (11, 61) h-1) and nNAVA (10 (9, 56) h-1) (p = 0.8). In conclusion, nPSV and nNAVA similarly inhibit gastroesophageal refluxes in healthy newborn lambs at pressures that do not lead to gastric distension. In addition, the occurrence of esophageal insufflations is not significantly different between nPSV and nNAVA. The strong inhibitory effect of nIPPV on gastroesophageal refluxes appears identical to that reported with nasal continuous positive airway pressure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".