MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782731372 · doi:10.3389/fped.2017.00296

Effects of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Sucking, Swallowing, and Breathing during Bottle-Feeding in Lambs

2018· article· en· W2782731372 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathalie Samson, Charlène Nadeau, Laurence Vincent, Danny Cantin, Jean‐Paul Praud

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineSwallowingContinuous positive airway pressureAnesthesiaNasal cannulaCannulaRespiratory systemAirwayBottleSurgeryInternal medicineObstructive sleep apnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of prolonged respiratory support under the form of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is frequent in newborn infants. Introduction of oral feeding under such nasal respiratory support is however highly controversial among neonatologists, due to the fear that it could disrupt sucking, swallowing and breathing coordination and in turn induce cardiorespiratory events. The recent observation of tracheal aspirations during bottle-feeding in preterm infants under nCPAP justifies the use of animal models to perform more comprehensive physiological studies on the subject, in order to gain further insights for clinical studies. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the impact of HFNC and nCPAP on bottle-feeding in newborn lambs, in terms of bottle-feeding efficiency and safety as well as sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination. Eight full-term lambs were instrumented to record sucking, swallowing and respiration as well as ECG and oxygenation. Lambs were bottle-fed in a standardized manner during three randomly ordered conditions, namely nCPAP 6 cmH2O, HFNC 7 L/min and no respiratory support. Results revealed that nCPAP decreased feeding duration (25 vs. 31 s (control) vs. 57 s (HFNC), p = 0.03) and increased the rate of milk transfer (2.4 vs. 1.9 ml/s (control) vs.1.1 ml/s (HFNC), p = 0.03). No other indices of bottle-feeding safety or sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination were significantly altered by HFNC or nCPAP. In conclusion, our results obtained in full-term newborn lambs suggest that: i) nCPAP 6 cmH2O, but not HFNC 7 L/min, increases bottle-feeding efficiency; ii) bottle-feeding is safe under nasal CPAP 6 cmH2O and HFNC 7 L/min, with no significant alteration in sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination. The present informative and reassuring data in full-term healthy lambs must be complemented by similar studies in preterm lambs, including with mild-to-moderate respiratory distress alleviated by respiratory support in order to mimic preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia and pave the way for clinical studies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207