High-Frequency Ventilation Modalities as Salvage Therapy for Smoke Inhalation–Associated Acute Lung Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoke inhalation-associated acute lung injury (SI-ALI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in victims of fire tragedies. To date, there are no evidence-based guidelines on ventilation strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after smoke inhalation. We reviewed the existing literature for clinical studies of salvage mechanical ventilation (MV) strategies in patients with SI-ALI, focusing on mortality and pneumonia as outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was designed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS; 0 to 9 stars), with a score ≥7 being the threshold for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A systematic search strategy was used to search 10 databases. Clinical studies were included in which patients: (1) experienced smoke inhalation, (2) treated with MV, and (3) described a concurrent or historical control group. RESULTS: A total of 226 potentially relevant studies were identified, of which 7 studies on high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) met inclusion criteria. No studies met inclusion for meta-analysis (NOS ≥ 7). In studies comparing HFPV to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV), mortality and pneumonia incidence improved in 3 studies and remained unchanged in 3 others. No change in ventilator days or ICU length of stay was observed; however, oxygenation and work of breathing improved with HFPV. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical ventilation in patients with SI-ALI has not been well studied. High-frequency percussive ventilation may decrease in-hospital mortality and pneumonia incidence when compared to CMV. The absence of "good" quality evidence precluded meta-analysis. Based upon low-quality evidence, there was a very weak recommendation that HFPV use may be associated with lower mortality and pneumonia rates in patients with SI-ALI. Given SI-ALI's unique underlying pathophysiology, and its potential implications on therapy, randomized controlled studies are required to ensure that patients receive the safest and most effective care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (#47015).
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".