MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557625609 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001470

Anesthetic Considerations for Patients With Congenital Central Hypoventilation Syndrome: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2016· review· en· W2557625609 on OpenAlexaff
Saptashree M. Basu, Frances Chung, Shireen F. AbdelHakim, Jean Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCongenital central hypoventilation syndromeSystematic reviewPerioperativeMEDLINEHypoventilationRandomized controlled trialSedationObservational studyIntensive care medicineAnestheticAnesthesiologyAnesthesiaSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (CCHS) is a form of sleep-disordered breathing characterized by a diminished drive to breathe during sleep, despite progressive hypercapnia and hypoxia. The condition results from mutations in the paired-like homeobox 2B (PHOX2B) gene. The aim of this review was to conduct a systematic search of the current data on CCHS as it relates to perioperative considerations and to discuss the classification, prevalence, pathophysiology, presentation, genetics, and management of the condition. A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was done up to October 2015. The results were limited to human studies published in the English language. Study titles and abstracts were screened to identify studies relating to CCHS relevant to anesthetic care. All study designs including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case reports, or case series were included. The searches yielded 165 articles, of which 45 were relevant to perioperative considerations. There were 15 relevant case reports categorized as pertaining to the following: (1) novel presentations of the condition after sedation/anesthesia; (2) anesthetic techniques used in patients with established CCHS; and (3) patients with CCHS who experienced anesthetic complications. Review of the case reports showed that patients ranged from neonates up to 59 years of age. Novel presentations of the disease after sedation or anesthesia for minor procedures often led to diagnosis. The sequelae of undiagnosed CCHS led to complications, such as hypoxia, desaturations, apneas, seizures, unplanned intensive care admissions, prolonged hospital stays, and long-term tracheostomies. There appeared to be few postoperative complications in patients with known CCHS. Anesthesiologists need to be aware of undiagnosed late-onset CCHS and include this condition in the differential diagnosis of patients with unexplained postoperative respiratory depression. Anesthetic techniques should minimize the use of agents that further depress respiration postprocedure and ensure adequate monitoring to detect postoperative apneas.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207