MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288052466 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2022-013

Potential rebreathing of carbon dioxide during noninvasive ventilation provided by critical care ventilator

2022· article· en· W4288052466 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Al Hussain, David L. Vines

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnesthesiaMedicineCrossover studyVentilation (architecture)Nasal cannulaCannulaWashoutMechanical ventilationCritically illSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Critical care ventilators are frequently used to provide noninvasive ventilation (NIV) support to critically ill patients. Questions remain regarding carbon dioxide (CO~2~) clearance while using a critical care ventilator and dual limb circuit with various patient interfaces. The purpose of this study is to determine the positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) level required to effectively washout CO~2~ for full-face and oronasal masks when using a dual limb circuit. Method This randomized crossover trial was conducted at an academic medical center in the Midwest United States. After obtaining informed consent, eight healthy volunteers were placed on a 980 Puritan Bennett (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) ventilator operating in the NIV mode. All subjects performed 20 min of breathing on four levels of PEEP (0, 2, 4, and 5 cm H~2~O) and pressure support of 5 cm H~2~O. NIV settings were applied to four masks (two oronasal and two full-face masks) that were randomly selected with a 5-min washout period between each mask. The fraction of inspired carbon dioxide (F~ICO2~) was sampled/monitored with a nasal cannula using a Capnostream 20p monitor (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and reported as percentages. A Kruskal--Wallis test was used to reveal significant differences across PEEP levels. Pairwise comparisons of the groups were made using Mann--Whitney tests with a family-wise error correction. Results Median (IQR) F~ICO2~ was significantly lower 0.0% (0%--0.92%) at PEEP of 5 compared to 1.83% (0.66%--4.0%; p \< 0.001) at PEEP of 0 or 1.0% (0.33%--2.66%; p = 0.002) at PEEP of 2. F~ICO2~ was significantly lower 0.5% (0%--1.92%) at PEEP of 4 compared to PEEP of 0 (p = 0.001). Conclusion A PEEP level of at least 5 cm H~2~O associated with the reported leak was required to minimize the likelihood of CO~2~ rebreathing while using a critical care ventilator to provide NIV with a double limb circuit and full-face or oronasal masks.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207