Cardiorespiratory effects of NIV-NAVA, NIPPV, and NCPAP shortly after extubation in extremely preterm infants: a randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Investigate the cardiorespiratory effects of non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA), non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) during the critical period shortly after extubation. Hypothesis: Levels of non-invasive pressure support provided and/or presence of synchronization can affect cardiorespiratory parameters. Study design: Randomized crossover trial. Patient-subject selection: Infants with birth weight (BW) ≤ 1250g undergoing their first planned extubation were randomly assigned to all 3 modes following extubation. Methodology: Electrocardiogram and electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) were recorded during 30min on each mode. Analysis of heart rate variability (HRV), diaphragmatic activity (Edi area, breath area, amplitude, inspiratory and expiratory times) and respiratory variability (RV) were compared between modes. Results: 23 enrolled infants had full data recordings and analysis: median [IQR] gestational age = 25.9 weeks [25.2-26.4], BW = 760g [595-900], and post-natal age 7 [4-19] days. There were no differences in HRV parameters between modes. During NIV-NAVA and NIPPV, diaphragmatic activity was significantly lower and RV higher than NCPAP. Delivered peak inflation pressures (PIPs) were lower during NIV-NAVA than NIPPV (14 cmH2O [13-16] vs cmH2O 16 [16-17]; p<0.001). However, due to a significantly higher proportion of assisted breaths (99% [92-103] vs. 51% [38-82]; p<0.001) NIV-NAVA provided a higher mean airway pressure (MAP)(9.4 cmH2O [8.2-10.0] vs. 8.2 cmH2O [7.6-9.3]; p=0.002). Conclusions: NIV-NAVA and NIPPV applied shortly after extubation were associated with positive cardiorespiratory effects. This effect was more evident during NIV-NAVA where patient-ventilator synchronization provided a higher MAP with lower PIPs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".