MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759754189 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000001349

The Impact of Fluid Overload on Outcomes in Children Treated With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study*

2017· article· en· W2759754189 on OpenAlexaff
David T. Selewski, David J. Askenazi, Brian C. Bridges, David S. Cooper, Geoffrey M. Fleming, Matthew L. Paden, Mark Verway, Rashmi D. Sahay, Eileen King, Michael Zappitelli

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMedicineInterquartile rangeRetrospective cohort studyOxygenationExtracorporealAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the epidemiology of fluid overload and its association with mortality and duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in children treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six tertiary children's hospital ICUs. PATIENTS: Seven hundred fifty-six children younger than 18 years old treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for greater than or equal to 24 hours from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall survival to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation and hospital discharge was 74.9% (n = 566) and 57.7% (n = 436), respectively. Median fluid overload at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation was 8.8% (interquartile range, 0.3-19.2), and it differed between hospital survivors and non survival, though not between extracorporeal membrane oxygenation survivors and non survivors. Median peak fluid overload on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was 30.9% (interquartile range, 15.4-54.8). During extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 84.8% had a peak fluid overload greater than or equal to 10%; 67.2% of patients had a peak fluid overload of greater than or equal to 20% and 29% of patients had a peak fluid overload of greater than or equal to 50%. The median peak fluid overload was lower in patients who survived on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (27.2% vs 44.4%; p < 0.0001) and survived to hospital discharge (24.8% vs 43.3%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for acute kidney injury, pH at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation, nonrenal complications, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation mode, support type, center and patient age, the degree of fluid overload at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation (p = 0.05), and the peak fluid overload on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (p < 0.0001) predicted duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in survivors. Multivariable analysis showed that peak fluid overload on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15) predicted mortality on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; fluid overload at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) and peak fluid overload (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.24) both predicted hospital morality. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid overload occurs commonly and is independently associated with adverse outcomes including increased mortality and increased duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a broad pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation population. These results suggest that fluid overload is a potential target for intervention to improve outcomes in children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations113
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207