Peep titration based on the open lung approach during one lung ventilation in thoracic surgery: a physiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During thoracic surgery in lateral decubitus, one lung ventilation (OLV) may impair respiratory mechanics and gas exchange. We tested a strategy based on an open lung approach (OLA) consisting in lung recruitment immediately followed by a decremental positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration to the best respiratory system compliance (CRS) and separately quantified the elastic properties of the lung and the chest wall. Our hypothesis was that this approach would improve gas exchange. Further, we were interested in documenting the impact of the OLA on partitioned respiratory system mechanics. In thirteen patients undergoing upper left lobectomy we studied lung and chest wall mechanics, transpulmonary pressure (PL), respiratory system and transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPRS and ΔPL), gas exchange and hemodynamics at two time-points (a) during OLV at zero end-expiratory pressure (OLVpre-OLA) and (b) after the application of the open-lung strategy (OLVpost-OLA). The external PEEP selected through the OLA was 6 ± 0.8 cmH2O. As compared to OLVpre-OLA, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio went from 205 ± 73 to 313 ± 86 (p = .05) and CL increased from 56 ± 18 ml/cmH2O to 71 ± 12 ml/cmH2O (p = .0013), without changes in CCW. Both ΔPRS and ΔPL decreased from 9.2 ± 0.4 cmH2O to 6.8 ± 0.6 cmH2O and from 8.1 ± 0.5 cmH2O to 5.7 ± 0.5 cmH2O, (p = .001 and p = .015 vs OLVpre-OLA), respectively. Hemodynamic parameters remained stable throughout the study period. In our patients, the OLA strategy performed during OLV improved oxygenation and increased CL and had no clinically significant hemodynamic effects. Although our study was not specifically designed to study ΔPRS and ΔPL, we observed a parallel reduction of both after the OLA. TRN: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03435523 , retrospectively registered, Feb 14 2018.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".