A Real-World Evidence Study Assessing the Impact of Adding the Aerobika Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure Device to Standard of Care Upon Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Post-Operative Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this real-world study was to measure the benefit of the Aerobika oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) device when added to standard of care (defined as incentive spirometry [IS]) for post-operative patients. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized for cardiac, thoracic or upper abdominal surgery between 1 September 2013 and 30 April 2017 were identified from IQVIA's Hospital Charge Detail Master (CDM) database; the index date was the date of the first hospitalization for surgery. The control cohort (IS) included patients who had ≥ 1 CDM record within 12 months prior to the index date and ≥ 1 record after discharge, evidence of IS use during index hospitalization and no evidence of use of a PEP or OPEP device at any time during the study period. The Aerobika OPEP cohort was selected in a similar manner, except that patients were required to have evidence of Aerobika OPEP use during the index hospitalization. Aerobika OPEP patients were 1:1 matched to IS patients using propensity score (PS) matching. Hospital readmissions and costs were measured at 30 days post-discharge from the index hospitalization. RESULTS: After PS matching, 144 patients were included in each cohort. At 30 days post-discharge, compared to the control (IS) cohort there were significantly fewer patients in the Aerobika OPEP cohort with ≥ 1 all-cause re-hospitalizations (13.9 vs. 22.9%; p = 0.042). The patients in the Aerobika OPEP cohort also had a shorter mean length of stay (± standard deviation) (1.25 ± 4.04 vs. 2.60 ± 8.24 days; p = 0.047) and lower total unadjusted mean all-cause cost per patient ($3670 ± $13,894 vs. $13,775 ± $84,238; p = 0.057). Adjusted analyses suggested that hospitalization costs were 80% lower for the Aerobika OPEP cohort versus the IS cohort (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the addition of the Aerobika OPEP device to standard of care (IS) is beneficial in the post-operative setting. FUNDING: Trudell Medical International.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".