MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738232140 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000001282

Epidemiology of Noninvasive Ventilation in Pediatric Cardiac ICUs*

2017· article· en· W2738232140 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan A. Romans, Steven M. Schwartz, John M. Costello, Nikhil K. Chanani, Parthak Prodhan, Avihu Z. Gazit, Andrew Smith, David S. Cooper, Jeffrey A. Alten, Kshitij P. Mistry, Wenying Zhang, Janet E. Donohue, Michael Gaies

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Nasal cannulaIntensive careCohortEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaCannulaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of noninvasive ventilation therapy for patients admitted to pediatric cardiac ICUs and to assess practice variation across hospitals. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected clinical registry data. SETTING: Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium clinical registry. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to cardiac ICUs at PC4 hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed all cardiac ICU encounters that included any respiratory support from October 2013 to December 2015. Noninvasive ventilation therapy included high flow nasal cannula and positive airway pressure support. We compared patient and, when relevant, perioperative characteristics of those receiving noninvasive ventilation to all others. Subgroup analysis was performed on neonates and infants undergoing major cardiovascular surgery. To examine duration of respiratory support, we created a casemix-adjustment model and calculated adjusted mean durations of total respiratory support (mechanical ventilation + noninvasive ventilation), mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation. We compared adjusted duration of support across hospitals. The cohort included 8,940 encounters from 15 hospitals: 3,950 (44%) received noninvasive ventilation and 72% were neonates and infants. Medical encounters were more likely to include noninvasive ventilation than surgical. In surgical neonates and infants, 2,032 (55%) received postoperative noninvasive ventilation. Neonates, extracardiac anomalies, single ventricle, procedure complexity, preoperative respiratory support, mechanical ventilation duration, and postoperative disease severity were associated with noninvasive ventilation therapy (p < 0.001 for all). Across hospitals, noninvasive ventilation use ranged from 32% to 65%, and adjusted mean noninvasive ventilation duration ranged from 1 to 4 days (3-d observed mean). Duration of total adjusted respiratory support was more strongly correlated with duration of mechanical ventilation compared with noninvasive ventilation (Pearson r = 0.93 vs 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation use is common in cardiac ICUs, especially in patients admitted for medical conditions, infants, and those undergoing high complexity surgery. We observed wide variation in noninvasive ventilation use across hospitals, though the primary driver of total respiratory support time seems to be duration of mechanical ventilation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207