MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947017672 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201806-1094oc

Mechanical Ventilation Management during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. An International Multicenter Prospective Cohort

2019· article· en· W2947017672 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Schmidt, Tài Pham, Antonio Arcadipane, Cara Agerstrand, Shinichiro Ohshimo, Vincent Pellegrino, Alain Vuylsteke, Christophe Guervilly, Shay McGuinness, Sophie Piérard, Jeff Breeding, Claire Stewart, Wai Ching Sin, Janice Camuso, R. Scott Stephens, Bobby H.S. KING, Daniel Herr, Marcus J. Schultz, Mathilde Neuville, Élie Zogheib, Jean-Paul Mira, Hadrien Rozé, Marc Pierrot, Antony Tobin, Carol Hodgson, Sylvie Chevret, Daniel Brodie, Alain Combes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationARDSMechanical ventilationFraction of inspired oxygenAnesthesiaProspective cohort studyPlateau pressureSurgeryInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Current practices regarding mechanical ventilation in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome are unknown. Objectives To report current practices regarding mechanical ventilation in patients treated with ECMO for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and their association with 6-month outcomes. Methods This was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ECMO for ARDS during a 1-year period in 23 international ICUs. Measurements and Main Results We collected demographics, daily pre- and per-ECMO mechanical ventilation settings and use of adjunctive therapies, ICU, and 6-month outcome data for 350 patients (mean ± SD pre-ECMO PaO2/FiO2 71 ± 34 mm Hg). Pre-ECMO use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockers were 26% and 62%, respectively. Vt (6.4 ± 2.0 vs. 3.7 ± 2.0 ml/kg), plateau pressure (32 ± 7 vs. 24 ± 7 cm H2O), driving pressure (20 ± 7 vs. 14 ± 4 cm H2O), respiratory rate (26 ± 8 vs. 14 ± 6 breaths/min), and mechanical power (26.1 ± 12.7 vs. 6.6 ± 4.8 J/min) were markedly reduced after ECMO initiation. Six-month survival was 61%. No association was found between ventilator settings during the first 2 days of ECMO and survival in multivariable analysis. A time-varying Cox model retained older age, higher fluid balance, higher lactate, and more need for renal-replacement therapy along the ECMO course as being independently associated with 6-month mortality. A higher Vt and lower driving pressure (likely markers of static compliance improvement) across the ECMO course were also associated with better outcomes. Conclusions Ultraprotective lung ventilation on ECMO was largely adopted across medium– to high–case volume ECMO centers. In contrast with previous observations, mechanical ventilation settings during ECMO did not impact patients’ prognosis in this context.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations345
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207