Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to review the feasibility of nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) in preventing reintubation in preterm infants. Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study of all premature newborn infants placed on NHFOV in a single-center neonatal intensive care unit. Results Twenty-seven patients (birth weight: 765 ± 186 g, gestational age: 28 ± 2 weeks) were commenced on NHFOV on 32 occasions. NHFOV was used immediately postextubation as the primary mode of noninvasive ventilation (NIV; prophylaxis) in 10 of 32 occasions and as “rescue” (failure of NCPAP or biphasic CPAP) in 22 of 32 occasions. Treatment with NHFOV was successful in 22 occasions (69%) while on 10 occasions (31%) reintubation was required within 72 hours. In the rescue group, there was significant reduction in the mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of apneas (0.9 ± 1.07 vs. 0.3 ± 0.29, p < 0.005), but there were no significant changes in the PCO2 level (52 [ ± 9.8] vs. 52 [ ± 8.6] mm Hg, p = 0.8), or the FiO2 requirement (0.39 ± 0.19 vs. 0.33 ± 0.10, p = 0.055) before and after commencing NHFOV, respectively. Conclusion The use of NHFOV is feasible as a prophylactic or rescue mode of NIV following extubation and was associated with decrease in the number of apneas without significant changes in PCO2 or oxygen requirements. A well-designed randomized control trial is needed to determine the indications, clinical outcomes, and safety of this treatment modality. Key Points
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".