MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413418196

Manual hyperinflation is associated with a low rate of adverse events when performed by experienced and trained nurses in stable critically ill patients--a prospective observational study.

2010· article· en· W2413418196 on OpenAlexaff
Frederique Paulus, Binnekade Jm, M. Vermeulen, Vroom Mb, Schultz Mj

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitAnesthesiaAdverse effectHeart rateAirwayIntensive careMean arterial pressureRespiratory rateOxygen saturationHemodynamicsBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Manual hyperinflation (MH) can be performed as part of airway management in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients to mobilize airway secretions. Although previous studies demonstrated MH to be associated with hemodynamic and respiratory instability, we hypothesized MH to cause fewer adverse events (AEs) when performed by experienced and trained nurses in stable critically ill patients. METHODS: The incidence and type of AEs associated with MH were studied in a 28-bed mixed medical-surgical Intensive Care Unit. A difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP) or heart rate (HR) >15%, a decrease in peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) >5%, and a change in end-tidal (et)-CO2 >20% were considered AEs. A decrease of MAP to ≤60 mmHg, any new arrhythmia, and a decrease of SpO2 ≤90% were all considered severe AEs. Also, all changes in medication were considered severe AEs. RESULTS: A total of 107 MH maneuvers in 74 patients, performed by 57 nurses, were observed and analyzed. A total of 17 MH maneuvers (16%) were associated with any AE; 7 maneuvers (6%) were associated with a severe AE. Overall, MH did not affect MAP. MH caused a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant increase of HR (from 87±24 to 89±22 bpm). In one patient the MAP dropped from 70 mmHg to 60 mmHg, requiring adjustment of vasopressor therapy; one patient developed ventricular tachycardia requiring electric cardioversion. In general, MH did not affect SpO2. In one patient SpO2 dropped below 90%, requiring additional oxygen supply for 10 minutes. MH caused a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant increase of et-CO2 levels (from 4.4±0.9 to 4.5±1.0 kPa). Five patients developed anxiety/agitation during or shortly after MH, mandating additional sedation in four patients. Occurrence of (severe) AEs was not associated with any specific patient or MH characteristic. CONCLUSION: The rate of hemodynamic and respiratory AEs with MH is low when performed by experienced and trained nurses in stable, critically ill patients. MH, however, may induce or increase anxiety/agitation. We consider MH a safe maneuver in stable ICU patients in our setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207