MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175055516 · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.05.068

Achieving Safe Liberation During Weaning From VV-ECMO in Patients With Severe ARDS

2021· article· en· W3175055516 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Niall D. Ferguson, Jin Ma, Marcelo Cypel, Shaf Keshavjee, Eddy Fan, Lorenzo Del Sorbo

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsARDSWeaningLiberationMedicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineLungBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Weaning from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has not been not well studied. VV-ECMO can be discontinued when patients tolerate noninjurious mechanical ventilation (MV) during a sweep gas-off trial (SGOT). However, predictors of safe liberation are unknown. Research Question Can safe liberation from VV-ECMO be predicted at the bedside? Study Design and Methods Two observational studies of adults weaned from VV-ECMO for severe ARDS at Toronto General Hospital were conducted. MV settings, respiratory mechanics, and clinical variables were analyzed to predict safe liberation from VV-ECMO, defined a priori as avoida7ce of ECMO recannulation, increased MV support, need for rescue therapy, or hemodynamic instability developed within 48 h following decannulation. Results During both studies, 83 patients were weaned from VV-ECMO, 21 (25%) of whom did not meet the criteria for safe liberation. In the retrospective study, higher tidal volume per predicted body weight (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.05-2.40; P = .03) and heart rate (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.022-1.15; P = .01) at the end of SGOT were significantly associated with increased odds of unsafe liberation when adjusted for age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.09; P = .63) and sequential organ failure assessment score (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; P = .34). Change in ventilatory ratio had an imprecise association (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.94-7.95; P = .06) with unsafe liberation when adjusted for age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.10; P = .42), sequential organ failure assessment score (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81-1.51; P = .52), and heart rate (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .02). In the prospective study, patients who had unsafe liberation from VV-ECMO also had significantly higher inspiratory efforts (esophageal pressure swings, 9 [7-13] vs 18 [7-25] cm H 2 O; P = .03) and worse outcomes (longer MV duration, ICU and hospital length of stay). Interpretation Patients with higher tidal volume, heart rate, ventilatory ratio, and esophageal pressures swings during SGOT were less likely to achieve safe liberation from VV-ECMO.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 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

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCHEST JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207