Functional Laryngeal Assessment in Patients with Tracheostomy Following COVID-19 a Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore laryngeal function of tracheostomised patients with COVID-19 in the acute phase, to identify ways teams may facilitate and expedite tracheostomy weaning and rehabilitation of upper airway function. Consecutive tracheostomised patients underwent laryngeal examination during mechanical ventilation weaning. Primary outcomes included prevalence of upper aerodigestive oedema and airway protection during swallow, tracheostomy duration, ICU frailty scores, and oral intake type. Analyses included bivariate associations and exploratory multivariable regressions. 48 consecutive patients who underwent tracheostomy insertion as part of their respiratory wean following invasive ventilation in a single UK tertiary hospital were included. 21 (43.8%) had impaired airway protection on swallow (PAS ≥ 3) with 32 (66.7%) having marked airway oedema in at least one laryngeal area. Impaired airway protection was associated with longer total artificial airway duration (p = 0.008), longer tracheostomy tube duration (p = 0.007), multiple intubations (p = 0.006) and was associated with persistent ICU acquired weakness at ICU discharge (p = 0.03). Impaired airway protection was also an independent predictor for longer tracheostomy tube duration (p = 0.02, Beta 0.38, 95% CI 2.36 to 27.16). The majority of our study patients presented with complex laryngeal findings which were associated with impaired airway protection. We suggest a proactive standardized scoring and review protocol to manage this complex group of patients in order to maximize health outcomes and ICU resources. Early laryngeal assessment may facilitate weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation and liberation from tracheostomy, as well as practical and objective risk stratification for patients regarding decannulation and feeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".