MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3210743970 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.025

31 Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm infants: Safe and effective

2021· article· en· W3210743970 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Soucy-Giguère, Christine Drolet, Bruno Piedbœuf, Audrey Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchopulmonary dysplasiaIntubationHigh-frequency ventilationMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)SedationRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsAnesthesiaGestational ageSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Background Mechanical ventilation is frequently used in preterm infants for various indications, but is associated with multiple complications, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia and poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes. Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) is a noninvasive ventilation (NIV) strategy used to avoid mechanical ventilation and associated complications. However, its effectiveness remains controversial, and its safety has not been established. Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness of nHFOV to prevent intubations and support adequate ventilation in preterm infants, and to assess its safety profile. Design/Methods This was a retrospective crossover case study including 24 infants and 30 nHFOV instances between May 2018 and June 2020. Infants were included if they were placed on nHFOV for at least one hour; each nHFOV trial contributed as one instance. Data was collected from health records. Effectiveness outcomes were: successful transition to another NIV mode without requiring intubation, and variations in CO2, FiO2, and number of spells. Safety outcomes were: apparition of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), gastrointestinal complications, nasal cutaneous trauma, and comfort as assessed with the Neonatal Pain, Agitation and Sedation Scale (N-PASS). Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Nonparametric and semiparametric tests were used to compare outcomes pre- and during nHFOV. Results Baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. At initiation of nHFOV, mean chronological age and weight were 24 days (95% CI: 20 – 28) and 1119 grams (95% CI: 1038 – 1200) respectively. The most frequent indication for nHFOV was spells (56.7%), and the mean duration of nHFOV instances was 3.9 days (95% CI: 2.7 – 5.1) (Table 1). In 18 (60%) cases, infants transitioned successfully to another NIV mode without requiring intubation. Levels of CO2 and number of spells were significantly lower during nHFOV than pre-nHFOV. There was no significant difference in FiO2 pre-nHFOV and during nHFOV. No apparition or progression of IVH was observed following the use of nHFOV. There was no significant difference in N-PASS, nasal trauma, and gastrointestinal complications pre-nHFOV and during nHFOV (Table 2). Conclusion This study suggests that nHFOV is an effective ventilation method to avoid intubation and to decrease spells in preterm infants, without increasing complications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→