Duration of sweep gas off trial for weaning from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: No data are available on the duration of time needed to assess the adequacy of lung function after stopping sweep gas for weaning of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The objective of this study was to investigate changes in arterial blood gases (ABGs) during sweep gas off trials in patients receiving venovenous ECMO. Methods: Data on patients receiving venovenous ECMO, with a weaning trial at least once, were collected prospectively from January 2012 through December 2017. Serial changes in ABGs during sweep gas off trial and clinical outcomes after weaning from venovenous ECMO were evaluated. Results: Over the study period, 192 sweep gas off trials occurred in 93 patients: 115 (60%) failed and 77 (40%) were successful. During the trial, significant changes in blood gases were observed within 1 h in all patients. When serial ABGs were compared according to trial off results, there were no significant differences in the pH, PaCO2, and HCO3− trends across time points between successful and failed trials. However, PaO2 (70.6 versus 93.4 mmHg), SaO2 (91.9 versus 95.2%), and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (164.0 versus 233.4) were significantly lower in failed trials than successful trials within 1 h after stopping sweep gas. After 2 h of trial off, no significant change in blood gases was observed until the end of the trial. Conclusions: No change in blood gases was observed 2 h after stopping sweep gas in patients receiving venovenous ECMO. Based on our institutional experience, however, we suggest monitoring for 2 h or more after stopping sweep gas flow to assess if patients are ready for decannulation. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".