Prolonged Ventilatory Support for Patients Recovering From Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recovery from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) may be protracted, and patients may need prolonged ventilatory support. We present clinical data from a tertiary referral weaning center managing patients with GBS requiring prolonged ventilatory support. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients managed in a 34-bed specialist ventilator weaning facility in London, United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2017. Data including demographics, initial presentation, and ventilatory support were collected. Functional recovery and outcome data were collected between 12 months and 3 years following disease onset. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with severe GBS requiring prolonged ventilation were included. In several patients, coexisting conditions or complications affected the course. Seventy-six percent (n = 22) were successfully weaned from invasive ventilation with a median time to tracheostomy decannulation of 193 days (range: 49-527 days). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), as part of the weaning program, was applied in 59% (13/22), with 14% (3/22) requiring long-term nocturnal NIV. Twenty-four percent (7/29) were not decannulated, with 14% (4/29) supported on long-term invasive ventilation. Forty-five percent (10/22) weaned from invasive ventilation were able to achieve short distance-assisted ambulation. Mortality at 36 months was 17% (5/29), with 3 of these deaths occurring in patients invasively ventilated during their acute admission. CONCLUSIONS: GBS with severe respiratory muscle weakness and bulbar dysfunction may require prolonged invasive ventilation. However, there is potential for complete weaning from invasive mechanical ventilatory support with associated function recovery. These data highlight the importance of maintaining ongoing support and rehabilitation for patients with GBS requiring prolonged ventilation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".