MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138469621 · doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03536-2

Mechanical ventilation parameters in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3138469621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giacomo Grasselli, Emanuele Cattaneo, Gaetano Florio, Mariachiara Ippolito, Alberto Zanella, Andrea Cortegiani, Jianbo Huang, Antonio Pesenti, Sharon Einav

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMinistero della Salute
KeywordsMedicineCritically illCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mechanical ventilationIntensive care medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Critical illnessEmergency medicineVirologyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is high, particularly among those receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). Despite the high number of patients treated worldwide, data on respiratory mechanics are currently scarce and the optimal setting of MV remains to be defined. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of available data about respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and MV settings in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, and to identify knowledge gaps. Main text PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to October 30, 2020 for studies providing at least one ventilatory parameter collected within 24 h from the ICU admission. The quality of the studies was independently assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. A total of 26 studies were included for a total of 14,075 patients. At ICU admission, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) values ranged from 9 to 16.5 cm of water (cmH 2 O), suggesting that high levels of PEEP were commonly used for setting MV for these patients. Patients with COVID-19 are severely hypoxemic at ICU admission and show a median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ) ranging from 102 to 198 mmHg. Static respiratory system compliance (Crs) values at ICU admission were highly heterogenous, ranging between 24 and 49 ml/cmH 2 O. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents were widely used, ranging from 17 to 81 and 22 to 88%, respectively; both rates were higher than previously reported in patients with “classical” acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Conclusions Available data show that, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, respiratory mechanics and MV settings within 24 h from ICU admission are heterogeneous but similar to those reported for “classical” ARDS. However, to date, complete data regarding mechanical properties of respiratory system, optimal setting of MV and the role of rescue treatments for refractory hypoxemia are still lacking in the medical literature.

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)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations133
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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