MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921543968 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2018-013

The Use of High Frequency Percussive Ventilation (HFPV) in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Patients Significantly Improves Gas Exchange without Impairment of Hemodynamics

2018· article· en· W2921543968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Oribabor, Iosif Gulkarov, Felix Khusid, E Fischer, Adebayo Esan, Nancy Rizzuto, Anthony J. Tortólani, P. Dattilo, K. L. Suen, Justin Ugwu, Brent Kenney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodynamicsMedicineAnesthesiaCardiac surgeryCardiac indexCentral venous pressureVentilation (architecture)Cardiac outputHigh-frequency ventilationMechanical ventilationCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory failure represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for surgical patients. High-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) is emerging as a potentially effective rescue therapy in patients failing conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). Use of HFPV is often limited by concerns for potential effects on hemodynamics, which is particularly tenuous in patients immediately after cardiac surgery. In this manuscript we evaluated the effects of HFPV on gas exchange and cardiac hemodynamics in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery, in comparison with CMV. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive cardiac surgery patients were ventilated in immediate postoperative period with HFPV for two to four hours, then they switched to a CMV using the adaptive support ventilation mode for weaning. Arterial blood gases were performed during the first and second hour on HFPV, and at 45 minutes after initiation of CMV. Respiratory settings and invasive hemodynamic data (mixed venous oxygen saturation, central venous pressure, systemic and pulmonary blood pressure, cardiac output and index) were collected utilizing right heart pulmonary catheter and arterial lines during HFPV and CMV. Primary outcome was improvement in the ratio between partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) and changes in hemodynamics. RESULTS: < 0.05), suggesting much better gas exchange on HFPV than on CMV. Hemodynamics were not affected by the mode of the ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in gas exchange, reflected in a significantly improved P/F ratio, wasn't accompanied by worsening in hemodynamic parameters. The significant gains in the P/F ratio were lost when patients were switched to conventional ventilation. This data suggest that HFPV provides significantly better gas exchange compared with CMV and can be safely utilized in postoperative cardiac patients without any significant effect on hemodynamics.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207