MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534814362 · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1457-4

Spontaneous breathing trial and post-extubation work of breathing in morbidly obese critically ill patients

2016· article· en· W2534814362 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Mahul, Boris Jung, Fabrice Galia, Nicolas Molinari, Audrey De Jong, Yannaël Coisel, Rosanna Vaschetto, Stéfan Matecki, Gérald Chanques, Laurent Brochard, Samir Jaber

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePressure support ventilationSpontaneous breathing trialWork of breathingMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaIntensive care unitWeaningVentilation (architecture)Critically illCrossover studyIntensive careBody mass indexContinuous positive airway pressureInternal medicineIntensive care medicineObstructive sleep apneaPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting whether an obese critically ill patient can be successfully extubated may be specially challenging. Several weaning tests have been described but no physiological study has evaluated the weaning test that would best reflect the post-extubation inspiratory effort. This was a physiological randomized crossover study in a medical and surgical single-center Intensive Care Unit, in patients with body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 who were mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h and underwent a weaning test. After randomization, 17 patients were explored using five settings : pressure support ventilation (PSV) 7 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 7 cmH2O; PSV 0 and PEEP 7cmH2O; PSV 7 and PEEP 0 cmH2O; PSV 0 and PEEP 0 cmH2O; and a T piece, and after extubation. To further minimize interaction between each setting, a period of baseline ventilation was performed between each step of the study. We hypothesized that the post-extubation work of breathing (WOB) would be similar to the T-tube WOB. Respiratory variables and esophageal and gastric pressure were recorded. Inspiratory muscle effort was calculated as the esophageal and trans-diaphragmatic pressure time products and WOB. Sixteen obese patients (BMI 44 kg/m2 ± 8) were included and successfully extubated. Post-extubation inspiratory effort, calculated by WOB, was 1.56 J/L ± 0.50, not statistically different from the T piece (1.57 J/L ± 0.56) or PSV 0 and PEEP 0 cmH2O (1.58 J/L ± 0.57), whatever the index of inspiratory effort. The three tests that maintained pressure support statistically underestimated post-extubation inspiratory effort (WOB 0.69 J/L ± 0.31, 1.15 J/L ± 0.39 and 1.09 J/L ± 0.49, respectively, p < 0.001). Respiratory mechanics and arterial blood gases did not differ between the five tests and the post-extubation condition. In obese patients, inspiratory effort measured during weaning tests with either a T-piece or a PSV 0 and PEEP 0 was not different to post-extubation inspiratory effort. In contrast, weaning tests with positive pressure overestimated post-extubation inspiratory effort. Clinical trial.gov (reference NCT01616901 ), 2012, June 4th

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations74
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207