MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958265100 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000002846

Driving Pressure Is Associated with Outcome during Assisted Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2019· article· en· W2958265100 on OpenAlexafffund
Giacomo Bellani, Alice Grassi, Simone Sosio, Stefano Gatti, Brian P. Kavanagh, Antonio Pesenti, Giuseppe Foti

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAcute respiratory distressRespiratory distressOutcome (game theory)Ventilation (architecture)Intensive care medicineAnesthesiaPositive-Pressure RespirationMechanical ventilationInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Higher driving pressure during controlled mechanical ventilation is known to be associated with increased mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Whereas patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome are initially managed with controlled mechanical ventilation, as they improve, they are transitioned to assisted ventilation. Whether higher driving pressure assessed during pressure support (assisted) ventilation can be reliably assessed and whether higher driving pressure is associated with worse outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome has not been well studied. WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: This study shows that in the majority of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, both driving pressure and respiratory system compliance can be reliably measured during pressure support (assisted) ventilation.Higher driving pressure measured during pressure support (assisted) ventilation significantly associates with increased intensive care unit mortality, whereas peak inspiratory pressure does not.Lower respiratory system compliance also significantly associates with increased intensive care unit mortality. BACKGROUND: Driving pressure, the difference between plateau pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), is closely associated with increased mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although this relationship has been demonstrated during controlled mechanical ventilation, plateau pressure is often not measured during spontaneous breathing because of concerns about validity. The objective of the present study is to verify whether driving pressure and respiratory system compliance are independently associated with increased mortality during assisted ventilation (i.e., pressure support ventilation). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted on 154 patients with ARDS in whom plateau pressure during the first three days of assisted ventilation was available. Associations between driving pressure, respiratory system compliance, and survival were assessed by univariable and multivariable analysis. In patients who underwent a computed tomography scan (n = 23) during the stage of assisted ventilation, the quantity of aerated lung was compared with respiratory system compliance measured on the same date. RESULTS: In contrast to controlled mechanical ventilation, plateau pressure during assisted ventilation was higher than the sum of PEEP and pressure support (peak pressure). Driving pressure was higher (11 [9-14] vs. 10 [8-11] cm H2O; P = 0.004); compliance was lower (40 [30-50] vs. 51 [42-61] ml · cm H2O; P < 0.001); and peak pressure was similar, in nonsurvivors versus survivors. Lower respiratory system compliance (odds ratio, 0.92 [0.88-0.96]) and higher driving pressure (odds ratio, 1.34 [1.12-1.61]) were each independently associated with increased risk of death. Respiratory system compliance was correlated with the aerated lung volume (n = 23, r = 0.69, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ARDS, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory system compliance can be measured during assisted ventilation, and both higher driving pressure and lower compliance are associated with increased mortality.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations132
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207