MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015494413 · doi:10.4187/respcare.07306

Physiologic Effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Healthy Subjects

2020· article· en· W3015494413 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Delorme, Pierre-Alexandre Bouchard, Mathieu Simon, Serge Simard, François Lellouche

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeNasal cannulaAnesthesiaWork of breathingVentilation (architecture)Respiratory rateRespiratory minute volumeTidal volumeCrossover studyDead spaceRespiratory systemCannulaMechanical ventilationInternal medicineSurgeryHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in the management of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Little is known about the optimal settings for HFNC. This study was designed to assess the dose effect of HFNC on respiratory effort indexes and respiratory patterns in spontaneously breathing adults. METHODS: A randomized controlled crossover study was conducted in 10 healthy subjects. Five experimental conditions were evaluated: baseline with no therapy; 5 L/min with conventional nasal prongs; and HFNC at 20, 40, and 60 L/min. The primary outcomes were the indexes of respiratory effort (ie, esophageal pressure swing [ΔP es ], esophageal pressure-time product, and work of breathing). Secondary outcomes included breathing pattern parameters and blood gases. Dead-space ventilation and washout were calculated based on minute ventilation, breathing frequency, and Radford equations. RESULTS: ΔP es increased from median (interquartile range [IQR] 3.2 (2.2–3.6) cm H 2 O at baseline to median (IQR) 5.7 (4.6–6.8) cm H 2 O at 60 L/min ( P &lt; .001). Neither esophageal pressure-time product nor work of breathing were modified during the tested conditions. The minute volume was significantly reduced at 40 and 60 L/min compared with baseline (P = .04), mostly driven by an important and dose-dependent reduction in breathing frequency, from median (IQR) 16 (15–18) breaths/min at baseline, to median (IQR) 8 (7–10) breaths/min at 60 L/min ( P &lt; .001). Capillary <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">P</mml:mtext> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">CO</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn mathvariant="bold">2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> was stable in all the tested conditions. The calculated dead-space ventilation was reduced by half with HFNC. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC did not significantly modify work of breathing in healthy subjects. However, a significant reduction in the minute volume was achieved, capillary <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">P</mml:mtext> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">CO</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn mathvariant="bold">2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> remaining constant, which suggests a reduction in dead-space ventilation with flows &gt; 20 L/min. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02495675).

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207