MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982062515 · doi:10.1186/s13613-019-0597-5

Effects of high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation on inspiratory effort in hypercapnic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preliminary study

2019· article· en· W2982062515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol UniversityMahidol University
KeywordsMedicineNasal cannulaCannulaAnesthesiologyPulmonary diseaseNoninvasive ventilationHypercapniaCOPDIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaMechanical ventilationInternal medicineRespiratory systemSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is preferred as the initial ventilatory support to treat acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be an alternative method; however, the effects of HFNC in hypercapnic COPD are not well known. This preliminary study aimed at assessing the physiologic effects of HFNC at different flow rates in hypercapnic COPD and to compare it with NIV. Methods A prospective physiologic study enrolled 12 hypercapnic COPD patients who had initially required NIV, and were ventilated with HFNC at flow rates increasing from 10 to 50 L/min for 15 min in each step. The primary outcome was the effort to breathe estimated by a simplified esophageal pressure–time product (sPTP es ). The other studied variables were respiratory rate, oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ), and transcutaneous CO 2 pressure (PtcCO 2 ). Results Before NIV initiation, the median [interquartile range] pH was 7.36 [7.28–7.37] with a PaCO 2 of 51 [42–60] mmHg. sPTP es per minute was significantly lower with HFNC at 30 L/min than 10 and 20 L/min ( p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ with NIV (median inspiratory/expiratory positive airway pressure of 11 [10–12] and [5–5] cmH 2 O, respectively). At 50 L/min, sPTPes per minute increased compared to 30 L/min half of the patients. Respiratory rate was lower ( p = 0.003) and SpO 2 was higher ( p = 0.028) with higher flows (30–50 L/min) compared to flow rate of 10 L/min and not different than with NIV. No significant differences in PtcCO 2 between NIV and HFNC at different flow rates were observed ( p = 0.335). Conclusions Applying HFNC at 30 L/min for a short duration reduces inspiratory effort in comparison to 10 and 20 L/min, and resulted in similar effect than NIV delivered at modest levels of pressure support in hypercapnic COPD with mild to moderate exacerbation. Higher flow rates reduce respiratory rate but sometimes increase the effort to breathe. Using HFNC at 30 L/min in hypercapnic COPD patients should be further evaluated. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20160902001. Registered 31 August 2016, http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=2008 .

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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