MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival and Healthcare Costs with Invasive Mechanical Ventilation versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients with Dementia Admitted with Pneumonia and Respiratory Failure

2022· article· en· W4211039532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan M. Teno, Donald R. Sullivan, Jen Bunker, Pedro Gozalo

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineDementiaPneumoniaMechanical ventilationPropensity score matchingEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyVentilator-associated pneumoniaIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Internal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) may be burdensome for persons with advanced dementia. Research has shown that IMV use in persons with dementia has increased in the United States, Spain, and Canada. Objectives To compare the outcomes and healthcare costs among hospitalized patients with advanced dementia treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) versus IMV. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted among hospitalized patients aged 66 years and older with pneumonia, or septicemia with pneumonia, treated with either NIV or IMV between 2015 and 2017. Persons were included if they had Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments between 1 and 120 days before hospitalization indicating that they had advanced dementia with four or more impairments in activities of daily living. Propensity-matched analysis was performed using clinical information from the MDS, Chronic Condition Warehouse indicators of chronic disease, and prior use measures. Main outcome measures were survival and healthcare costs up to 1 year after discharge. Results Among 27,483 hospitalizations between 2015 and 2017, IMV was used in 12.5% and NIV in 8.2%. A propensity-matched model comparing IMV versus NIV using clinical data from the MDS, Chronic Condition Warehouse indicators of chronic diseases, and prior use revealed matches for 96.3% of hospitalizations with the use of IMV. NIV matched cases had a higher 30-day mortality rate compared with IMV cases (58.7% vs. 51.9%, P ⩽ 0.001), but this survival benefit did not persist, as 1-year mortality was slightly higher among subjects with IMV compared with those with NIV (86.5% vs. 85.9%, P > 0.05). One-year healthcare costs after matching were higher among those treated with IMV compared with NIV (mean, $57,122 vs. $33,696; P < 0.001). Conclusions Among patients with advanced dementia hospitalized with pneumonia or septicemia with pneumonia, improvement in 30-day survival for those treated with IMV compared with NIV must be weighed against lack of 1-year survival benefit and substantially higher costs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207