MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161973452 · doi:10.1080/24745332.2021.1911218

Long-term non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): 2021 Canadian Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline update

2021· article· en· W3161973452 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marta Kamińska, Karen P. Rimmer, Douglas McKim, Mika Nonoyama, Eleni Giannouli, Debra Morrison, Colleen O’Connell, Basil J. Petrof, François Maltais

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversité LavalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityStan Cassidy FoundationUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDGuidelineIntensive care medicineExacerbationRandomized controlled trialClinical trialRespiratory failureVentilation (architecture)Emergency medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure is common in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and it is associated with adverse outcomes such as repeat hospitalization and death. Long-term non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been used with uncertain efficacy in this condition, but recent clinical trials suggest possible survival benefit and reduced hospitalization under specific circumstances with this therapy.METHODS: The purpose of this guideline update is to assess current evidence regarding long-term NIV in the treatment of chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure specifically related to advanced COPD. A representative multidisciplinary panel of expert clinicians undertook a formal clinical practice guideline development process. Four key clinical questions were defined according to the Patient/problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) approach. The panel performed a systematic literature review, assessed and graded the relevant evidence and made evidence-based recommendations.RESULTS: There is supportive evidence for the use of long-term NIV to improve survival in patients with stable COPD with significant chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. The use of this therapy may also lead to reduced hospital readmission rates when applied to patients who were recently hospitalized for an acute hypercapnic exacerbation and in whom the elevated partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) persists 2 to 4 weeks after the index hospitalization. Studies demonstrating benefit of long-term NIV targeted very selected patient populations and used very specific methodology, both of which are likely key elements for NIV success.Although there is no evidence from clinical trials directly comparing high-intensity versus low-intensity NIV, most successful clinical trials have used the former ventilation strategy. Therefore, when opting for long-term NIV in patients with COPD and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, we suggest using high-intensity ventilation (sufficient inspiratory pressures to meaningfully reduce PaCO2). We found no evidence to support the use of volume-assured pressure ventilation over standard pressure preset ventilation, which is currently the preferred mode.CONCLUSIONS: This 2021 guideline update represents an important shift from the previous recommendation against the use of long-term NIV in most patients with COPD and chronic hypercapnia, toward its suggested use. Based on the reported survival and hospital readmission rate benefits, we suggest long-term NIV in highly selected patients with COPD and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure along with the use of specific and closely monitored ventilatory strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207