Risks and Benefits of Ultra–Lung-Protective Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Strategies with a Focus on Extracorporeal Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung-protective ventilation strategies are the current standard of care for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in an effort to provide adequate ventilatory requirements while minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury. Some patients may benefit from ultra-lung-protective ventilation, a strategy that achieves lower airway pressures and Vt than the current standard. Specific physiological parameters beyond severity of hypoxemia, such as driving pressure and respiratory system elastance, may be predictive of those most likely to benefit. Because application of ultra-lung-protective ventilation is often limited by respiratory acidosis, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal, which remove carbon dioxide from blood, is an attractive option. These strategies are associated with hematological complications, especially when applied at low blood-flow rates with devices designed for higher blood flows, and a recent large randomized controlled trial failed to show a benefit from an extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal-facilitated ultra-lung-protective ventilation strategy. Only in patients with very severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome has the use of an ultra-lung-protective ventilation strategy-accomplished with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-been suggested to have a favorable risk-to-benefit profile. In this critical care perspective, we address key areas of controversy related to ultra-lung-protective ventilation, including the trade-offs between minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury and the risks from strategies to achieve this added protection. In addition, we suggest which patients might benefit most from an ultra-lung-protective strategy and propose areas of future research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".