MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097254801 · doi:10.3389/fped.2020.584334

Long-Term Non-invasive Ventilation in Children: Current Use, Indications, and Contraindications

2020· review· en· W3097254801 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Paul Praud

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoventilationIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Quality of life (healthcare)Airway obstructionLife expectancyRespiratory systemPediatricsAirwayAnesthesiaInternal medicinePopulationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review focuses on the delivery of noninvasive ventilation—i.e., intermittent positive-pressure ventilation—in children lasting more than three months. Several recent reviews have brought to light a dramatic escalation in the use of long-term noninvasive ventilation in children over the last 30 years. This is due both to the growing number of children receiving care for complex and severe diseases necessitating respiratory support and to the availability of LT-NIV equipment that can be used at home. While significant gaps in availability persist for smaller children and especially infants, home LT-NIV for children with chronic respiratory insufficiency has improved their quality of life and decreased the overall cost of care. While long-term NIV is usually delivered during sleep, it can also be delivered 24 hours a day in selected patients. Close collaboration between the hospital complex-care team, the home LT-NIV program, and family caregivers is of the utmost importance for successful home LT-NIV. Long-term NIV is indicated for respiratory disorders responsible for chronic alveolar hypoventilation, with the aim to increase life expectancy and maximize quality of life. LT-NIV is considered for conditions that affect respiratory-muscle performance (alterations in central respiratory drive or neuromuscular function) and/or impose an excessive respiratory load (airway obstruction, lung disease, or chest-wall anomalies). Relative contraindications for LT-NIV include the inability of the local medical infrastructure to support home LT-NIV and poor motivation or inability of the patient/caregivers to cooperate or understand recommendations. Anatomic abnormalities that interfere with interface fitting, inability to protect the lower airways due to excessive airway secretions and/or severely impaired swallowing, or failure of LT-NIV to support respiration can lead to considering invasive ventilation via tracheostomy. Of note, providing home LT-NIV during the COVID 19 pandemic has become more challenging. This is due both to the disruption of medical systems and the fear of contaminating care providers and family with aerosols generated by a patient positive for SARS-CoV-2 during NIV. Delay in initiating LT-NIV, decreased frequency of home visits by the home ventilation program, and decreased availability of polysomnography and oximetry/transcutaneous PCO2 monitoring are observed. Teleconsultations and telemonitoring are being developed to mitigate these challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207