MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914324931 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000003656

Compared Efficacy of Four Preoxygenation Methods for Intubation in the ICU: Retrospective Analysis of McGrath Mac Videolaryngoscope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope (MACMAN) Trial Data

2019· article· en· W2914324931 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur Bailly, Jean-Damien Ricard, Aurélie Le Thuaut, Julie Helms, Toufik Kamel, Emmanuelle Mercier, Virginie Lemiale, Gwenhaël Colin, Jean‐Paul Mira, Raphaël Clère-Jehl, Jonathan Messika, Pierre‐François Dequin, Thierry Boulain, Élie Azoulay, Benoît Champigneulle, Jean Reignier, Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationAnesthesiaLaryngoscopesLaryngoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Severe hypoxemia is the most common serious adverse event during endotracheal intubation. Preoxygenation is performed routinely as a preventive measure. The relative efficacy of the various available preoxygenation devices is unclear. Here, our objective was to assess associations between preoxygenation devices and pulse oximetry values during endotracheal intubation. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled superiority trial (McGrath Mac Videolaryngoscope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope [MACMAN]) comparing videolaryngoscopy to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in critical care. SETTING: Seven French ICUs. PATIENTS: Three-hundred nineteen of the 371 critically ill adults requiring endotracheal intubation who were included in the MACMAN trial. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Minimal pulse oximetry value during endotracheal intubation was the primary endpoint. We also sought risk factors for pulse oximetry below 90%. Of 319 patients, 157 (49%) had bag-valve-mask, 71 (22%) noninvasive ventilation, 71 (22%) non-rebreathing mask, and 20 (7%) high-flow nasal oxygen for preoxygenation. Factors independently associated with minimal pulse oximetry value were the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II severity score (p = 0.03), baseline pulse oximetry (p < 0.001), baseline PaO2/FIO2 ratio (p = 0.02), and number of laryngoscopies (p = 0.001). The only independent predictors of pulse oximetry less than 90% were baseline pulse oximetry (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79; p < 0.001) and preoxygenation device: with bag-valve-mask as the reference, odds ratios were 1.10 (95% CI, 0.25-4.92) with non-rebreathing mask, 0.10 (95% CI, 0.01-0.80) with noninvasive ventilation, and 5.75 (95% CI, 1.15-28.75) with high-flow nasal oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the main determinants of hypoxemia during endotracheal intubation may be related to critical illness severity and to preexisting hypoxemia. The differences across preoxygenation methods suggest that noninvasive ventilation may deserve preference in patients with marked hypoxemia before endotracheal intubation. Ongoing studies will provide further clarification about the optimal preoxygenation method for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207