MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761782646 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-61

63: Laryngeal Mask Airway Versus Endotracheal Intubation for Positive Pressure Ventilation with Chest Compressions in Neonatal Porcine Model

2014· article· en· W2761782646 on OpenAlexaff
AI Abou Mehrem, Rob Graham, G. Srinivasan, R Heese, Shyamala Dakshinamurti

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaPeak inspiratory pressureLaryngeal mask airwayNeonatal resuscitationIntubationPropofolVentilation (architecture)Mean airway pressureAirwayTidal volumeMechanical ventilationResuscitationRespiratory systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endotracheal intubation (EI) is recommended in neonatal resuscitation whenever chest compressions (CC) are indicated. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is used effectively to provide positive pressure ventilation (PPV) to newborns after delivery but the efficacy of LMA during PPV with CC is not well studied. To determine if LMA or EI deliver comparable tidal volumes, inspiratory (VTi) and expiratory (VTe), during PPV and CC in neonatal piglets. Twenty four- to six-day-old piglets (with weight 1.8 kg to 2.8 kg) were randomized to either EI (size 3.5 cuffed [n=9]) or LMA (size 1.5 [n=11]); mechanically ventilated; anesthetized with ketamine/propofol; and paralyzed with rocuronium. Arterial and venous lines were placed. Respiratory flow and airway pressure were measured continuously using a pneumotach, pressure transducer, and WinDaq acquisition system. Two-minute samples were recorded, and blood gases analyzed during baseline ventilation (BL), PPV with T-piece resuscitator (TP), and PPV with CC (TPCC) at 3:1 ratio. LMA insertion failed in one animal mandating EI. Ten animals were analyzed in each group. At BL there was no significant difference between EI and LMA in VTi, VTe, VT leak, Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), ventilator rate, FiO2, PaCO2, or PaO2. Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) was significantly higher with LMA; mean difference was 1.6 cm H2O, and 95% CI (0.12 to 3.1). Respiratory data during TP and TPCC are presented in Table 1. Comparing TP to TPCC showed that adding CC resulted in higher leak (P<0.05), lower PEEP (P<0.001) and lower PaO2 (P<0.001). Abdominal distension was observed with LMA but not EI, with postmortem gastric air aspirates of 22 to 80 mL. LMA provided comparable VT to EI during PPV and PPV with CC with slightly higher PIP. EI resulted in lower PaCO2 levels, which was within acceptable limits with both devices. Newer LMAs which allow decompression of the stomach as well as the efficacy of LMA in restoring spontaneous circulation after asphyxia should be investigated.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207