MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285726486 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202201-0065oc

High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4285726486 on OpenAlexaff
Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore, Samir Jaber, Domenico Luca Grieco, Jordi Mancebo, Spyros Zakynthinos, Alexandre Demoule, Jean-Damien Ricard, Paolo Navalesi, Rosanna Vaschetto, Sami Hraiech, Kada Klouche, Jean‐Pierre Frat, Virginie Lemiale, Vito Fanelli, Gérald Chanques, Daniele Natalini, Eleni Ischaki, Danielle Reuter, Indalecio Morán, Béatrice La Combe, Federico Longhini, Andrea De Gaetano, V. Marco Ranieri, Laurent Brochard, Massimo Antonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFisher and Paykel Healthcare
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioHazard ratioAnesthesiaConfidence intervalIntubationRandomized controlled trialVentilation (architecture)Mechanical ventilationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale When compared with VenturiMask after extubation, high-flow nasal oxygen provides physiological advantages. Objectives To establish whether high-flow oxygen prevents endotracheal reintubation in hypoxemic patients after extubation, compared with VenturiMask. Methods In this multicenter randomized trial, 494 patients exhibiting PaO2:Fi O2 ratio ⩽ 300 mm Hg after extubation were randomly assigned to receive high-flow or VenturiMask oxygen, with the possibility to apply rescue noninvasive ventilation before reintubation. High-flow use in the VenturiMask group was not permitted. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was the rate of reintubation within 72 hours according to predefined criteria, which were validated a posteriori by an independent adjudication committee. Main secondary outcomes included reintubation rate at 28 days and the need for rescue noninvasive ventilation according to predefined criteria. After intubation criteria validation (n = 492 patients), 32 patients (13%) in the high-flow group and 27 patients (11%) in the VenturiMask group required reintubation at 72 hours (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70–2.26]; P = 0.49). At 28 days, the rate of reintubation was 21% in the high-flow group and 23% in the VenturiMask group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.60–1.31]; P = 0.55). The need for rescue noninvasive ventilation was significantly lower in the high-flow group than in the VenturiMask group: at 72 hours, 8% versus 17% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22–0.71]; P = 0.002) and at 28 days, 12% versus 21% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32–0.83]; P = 0.007). Conclusions Reintubation rate did not significantly differ between patients treated with VenturiMask or high-flow oxygen after extubation. High-flow oxygen yielded less frequent use of rescue noninvasive ventilation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02107183).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207