MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229453188 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202111-2575oc

Peri-intubation Cardiovascular Collapse in Patients Who Are Critically Ill: Insights from the INTUBE Study

2022· article· en· W4229453188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationOdds ratioBlood pressureConfidence intervalPulse oximetryPerioperativeAnesthesiaPulse pressureProspective cohort studyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Cardiovascular instability/collapse is a common peri-intubation event in patients who are critically ill. Objectives To identify potentially modifiable variables associated with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse (i.e., systolic arterial pressure <65 mm Hg [once] or <90 mm Hg for >30 minutes; new/increased vasopressor requirement; fluid bolus >15 ml/kg, or cardiac arrest). Methods INTUBE (International Observational Study to Understand the Impact and Best Practices of Airway Management In Critically Ill Patients) was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients who were critically ill and undergoing tracheal intubation in a convenience sample of 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents from October 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Measurements and Main Results A total of 2,760 patients were included in this analysis. Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse occurred in 1,199 out of 2,760 patients (43.4%). Variables associated with this event were older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.03), higher heart rate (OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.004–1.012), lower systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99), lower oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi O2 before induction (OR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997–0.999), and the use of propofol as an induction agent (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.57). Patients with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse were at a higher risk of ICU mortality with an adjusted OR of 2.47 (95% CI, 1.72–3.55), P < 0.001. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method identified the use of propofol as the only factor independently associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02–1.49). When administered before induction, vasopressors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84–2.11) or fluid boluses (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96–1.44) did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular instability/collapse. Conclusions Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse was associated with an increased risk of both ICU and 28-day mortality. The use of propofol for induction was identified as a modifiable intervention significantly associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03616054).

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · 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