MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883203297 · doi:10.1016/j.yclnex.2018.07.002

The efficacy of a novel peristaltic feeding tube (PFT) in reducing reflux and aspiration of gastric contents in mechanically ventilated patients

2018· article· en· W2883203297 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Biderman, Peter Vernon van Heerden, Yaron Avitzur, Zaza Iakobishvili, Pierre Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition Experimental · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeristalsisRefluxMedicineTube (container)Intensive care medicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineDiseaseMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) is common in ventilated patients and is a cause of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP). The novel persistaltic feeding tube (PFT) uses simulated peristalsis to seal the esophagus to fluid moving in a retrograde manner, whilst allowing normal drainage of fluid and secretions moving in an ante-grade manner. This study describes the first trial of the PFT in ventilated patients. Methods There were 10 subjects in the treatment (PFT) group and 10 patients in the control group, who had all undergone elective cardiac surgery and were ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) afterwards. The PFT was placed on admission to the ICU. In the control group a standard nasogastric tube (NGT) was inserted. Specimens were collected by suctioning from the oropharynx and from above the tracheal tube balloon every hour and from the trachea twice per 8 h shift. Samples were analyzed by ELISA for Pepsin A, as a marker for secretions of gastric origin. Esophageal pressure monitoring (as a measure of pleural pressure), which is an intrinsic ability of the PFT device, was also noted throughout the study – for future integration in mechanical ventilation strategies. Results The two groups were comparable with regard to demographics and duration of ventilation. There was a larger number of specimens positive for Pepsin A in the control group in the oropharynx (p < 0.0001) and above the ETT cuff (p = 0.0001), but not in the trachea (p = 0.0603), using the Wald Chi-squared test. However, when comparing mean concentrations of Pepsin at the three sites, there was a statistically higher concentration in the control group in the oropharynx, above the ETT and in the trachea, compared to the PFT group. Conclusion The PFT reduced the amount of GER in ventilated patients. A larger study is required to determine whether this translates to a reduction in VAP. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618000669291.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nutrition ExperimentalSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207