MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122063461 · doi:10.1155/2021/6678080

Esophageal Balloon-Directed Ventilator Management for Postpneumonectomy Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2021· article· en· W3122063461 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Sy, Sherma Zacharias, Juan J. Ronco, James Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Critical Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRegina General HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSMedicineIntensive care unitPneumonectomyAcute respiratory distressMechanical ventilationRespiratory distressPositive end-expiratory pressurePressure support ventilationAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. Postpneumonectomy patients may develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal management of mechanical ventilation for postpneumonectomy patients. Esophageal balloon pressure monitoring has been used in traditional ARDS patients to set positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and minimize transpulmonary driving pressure ( Δ P L ), but its clinical use has not been previously described nor validated in postpneumonectomy patients. The primary objective of this report was to describe the potential clinical application of esophageal pressure monitoring to manage the postpneumonectomy patient with ARDS. Design. Case report. Setting. Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Patient. A 28-year-old patient was involved in a motor vehicle collision, with a right main bronchus injury, that required a right-sided pneumonectomy to stabilize his condition. In the perioperative phase, they subsequently developed ventilator-associated pneumonia, significant cumulative positive fluid balance, and ARDS. Interventions. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade were initiated. An esophageal balloon was inserted to direct ventilator management. Measurements and Main Results. V T was kept around 3.6 mL/kg PBW, Δ P L at ≤14 cm H2O, and plateau pressure at ≤30 cm H2O. Lung compliance was measured to be 37 mL/cm H2O. PEEP was optimized to maintain end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure P L < 15 cm H2O, and end-expiratory P L between 0 and 5 cm H2O. The maximal Δ P L was measured to be 11 cm H2O during the care of this patient. The patient improved with esophageal balloon-directed ventilator management and was eventually liberated from mechanical ventilation. Conclusions. The optimal targets for V T remain unknown in the postpneumonectomy patient. However, postpneumonectomy patients with ARDS may potentially benefit from very low V T and optimization of PEEP. We demonstrate the application of esophageal balloon pressure monitoring that clinicians could potentially use to limit injurious ventilation and improve outcomes in postpneumonectomy patients with ARDS. However, esophageal balloon pressure monitoring has not been extensively validated in this patient population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in Critical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207