MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802574252 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000002236

Continuous Negative Abdominal Pressure Reduces Ventilator-induced Lung Injury in a Porcine Model

2018· article· en· W2802574252 on OpenAlexaff
Takeshi Yoshida, Doreen Engelberts, Gail Otulakowski, Bhushan H. Katira, Martin Post, Niall D. Ferguson, Laurent Brochard, Marcelo B. P. Amato, Brian P. Kavanagh

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtelectasisPositive end-expiratory pressureAnesthesiaContinuous positive airway pressurePulmonary complianceMechanical ventilationTidal volumeLungOxygenationPneumoperitoneumVentilation (architecture)ARDSRespiratory systemInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In supine patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the lung typically partitions into regions of dorsal atelectasis and ventral aeration ("baby lung"). Positive airway pressure is often used to recruit atelectasis, but often overinflates ventral (already aerated) regions. A novel approach to selective recruitment of dorsal atelectasis is by "continuous negative abdominal pressure." METHODS: A randomized laboratory study was performed in anesthetized pigs. Lung injury was induced by surfactant lavage followed by 1 h of injurious mechanical ventilation. Randomization (five pigs in each group) was to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) alone or PEEP with continuous negative abdominal pressure (-5 cm H2O via a plexiglass chamber enclosing hindlimbs, pelvis, and abdomen), followed by 4 h of injurious ventilation (high tidal volume, 20 ml/kg; low expiratory transpulmonary pressure, -3 cm H2O). The level of PEEP at the start was ≈7 (vs. ≈3) cm H2O in the PEEP (vs. PEEP plus continuous negative abdominal pressure) groups. Esophageal pressure, hemodynamics, and electrical impedance tomography were recorded, and injury determined by lung wet/dry weight ratio and interleukin-6 expression. RESULTS: All animals survived, but cardiac output was decreased in the PEEP group. Addition of continuous negative abdominal pressure to PEEP resulted in greater oxygenation (PaO2/fractional inspired oxygen 316 ± 134 vs. 80 ± 24 mmHg at 4 h, P = 0.005), compliance (14.2 ± 3.0 vs. 10.3 ± 2.2 ml/cm H2O, P = 0.049), and homogeneity of ventilation, with less pulmonary edema (≈10% less) and interleukin-6 expression (≈30% less). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous negative abdominal pressure added to PEEP reduces ventilator-induced lung injury in a pig model compared with PEEP alone, despite targeting identical expiratory transpulmonary pressure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207