MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Airway Management Strategies for Brain-injured Patients Meeting Standard Criteria to Consider Extubation. A Prospective Cohort Study

2017· article· en· W2554031600 on OpenAlexaffabout
Victoria McCredie, Niall D. Ferguson, Ruxandra Pinto, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Robert Fowler, Martin Chapman, Althea Burrell, Andrew Baker, Maureen O. Meade, Damon C. Scales

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityMarkham Stouffville HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleMechanical ventilationOdds ratioAnesthesiaProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalIntensive careCohort studyLogistic regressionIntubationEmergency medicineAirway managementCohortIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Patients with acute brain injury are frequently capable of breathing spontaneously with minimal ventilatory support despite persistent neurological impairment. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe factors associated with extubation timing, success, and primary tracheostomy in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational cohort study in three academic hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Consecutive brain-injured adults receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours in three intensive care units were screened by study personnel daily for extubation consideration criteria. We monitored all patients until hospital discharge and used logistic regression models to examine associations with extubation failure and delayed extubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 192 patients included, 152 (79%) were extubated and 40 (21%) received a tracheostomy without an extubation attempt. The rate of extubation failure within 72 hours was 32 of 152 (21%), which did not vary significantly between those extubated before (early; 6 of 37; 16.2%), within 24 hours (timely; 14 of 70; 20.0%), or more than 24 hours after meeting criteria to consider extubation (delayed; 12 of 45; 26.7%; P = 0.49). Delayed extubation was associated with lower a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score at the time of consideration of extubation, absence of cough, and new positive sputum cultures. Factors independently associated with successful extubation were presence of cough (odds ratio [OR], 3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-9.09), fluid balance in prior 24 hours (OR, 0.75 per 1-L increase; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98), and age (OR, 0.97 per 10-yr increase; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). A higher GCS score was not associated with successful extubation. CONCLUSIONS: Extubation success was predicted by younger age, presence of cough, and negative fluid balance, rather than GCS score at extubation. These results do not support prolonging intubation solely for low GCS score in brain-injured patients.

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)0.003
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations93
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207