Awake Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Implantation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as an alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation, an “awake approach,” may facilitate a lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilatory strategies without the associated harms of endotracheal intubation, positive pressure ventilation, and continuous sedation. This report presents the characteristics and outcomes of the patients treated with the awake venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation approach. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Monocenter study. PATIENTS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 patients with acute respiratory failure treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation instead of invasive mechanical ventilation from March 2020 to March 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physiologic and laboratory data were collected at admission to the ICU, prior to and after venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantation, and at decannulation. Seven patients were treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation instead of invasive mechanical ventilation due to hypoxemia with a median Pa o 2 /F io 2 ratio at implantation of 76 (interquartile range, 59–92). Four patients in the awake group subsequently required invasive mechanical ventilation, and only one patient (14.3%) died. There were no significant complications attributed venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: This report demonstrates that in a selected group of patients, an “awake” venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation approach is feasible and may result in favorable outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".