MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888882658 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2828-8

Pressure support ventilation + sigh in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial, the PROTECTION trial

2018· article· en· W2888882658 on OpenAlexaff
Tommaso Mauri, Giuseppe Foti, Carla Fornari, Jean‐Michel Constantin, Claude Guérin, Paolo Pelosi, Marco Ranieri, Sara Conti, Daniela Tubiolo, Egle Rondelli, Federica Lovisari, Tommaso Fossali, Savino Spadaro, Domenico Luca Grieco, Paolo Navalesi, Italo Calamai, Tobias Becher, Oriol Roca, Yumei Wang, Rihard Knafelj, Andrea Cortegiani, Jordi Mancebo, Laurent Brochard, Antonio Pesenti

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Society of Intensive Care MedicineFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico
KeywordsMedicinePressure support ventilationVentilation (architecture)Randomized controlled trialSpontaneous breathing trialClinical endpointOxygenationMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaIntensive careRespiratory failureIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adding cyclic short sustained inflations (sigh) to assisted ventilation yields optimizes lung recruitment, decreases heterogeneity and reduces inspiratory effort in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). These findings suggest that adding sigh to pressure support ventilation (PSV) might decrease the risk of lung injury, shorten weaning and improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we conceived a pilot trial to test the feasibility of adding sigh to PSV (the PROTECTION study). PROTECTION is an international randomized controlled trial that will be conducted in 23 intensive care units (ICUs). Patients with AHRF who have been intubated from 24 h to 7 days and undergoing PSV from 4 to 24 h will be enrolled. All patients will first undergo a 30-min sigh test by adding sigh to clinical PSV for 30 min to identify early oxygenation responders. Then, patients will be randomized to PSV or PSV + sigh until extubation, ICU discharge, death or day 28. Sigh will be delivered as a 3-s pressure control breath delivered once per minute at 30 cmH2O. Standardized protocols will guide ventilation settings, switch back to controlled ventilation, use of rescue treatments, performance of spontaneous breathing trial, extubation and reintubation. The primary endpoint of the study will be to verify the feasibility of PSV + sigh evaluated through reduction of failure to remain on assisted ventilation during the first 28 days in the PSV + sigh group versus standard PSV (15 vs. 22%). Failure will be defined by switch back to controlled ventilation for more than 24 h or use of rescue treatments or reintubation within 48 h from elective extubation. Setting the power to 80% and first-risk order to 5%, the computed size of the trial is 129 patients per arm. PROTECTION is a pilot randomized controlled trial testing the feasibility of adding sigh to PSV. If positive, it will provide physicians with an effective addition to standard PSV for lung protection, able to reduce failure of assisted ventilation. PROTECTION will provide the basis for a future larger trial aimed at verifying the impact of PSV + sigh on 28-day survival and ventilator-free days. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201263 . Registered on 28 June 2017.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207