Ultrasonographic assessment of diaphragmatic function in preterm infants on Non-Invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NIV-NAVA) compared to Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV): A prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose of the study: NIV-NAVA mode for respiratory support in preterm infants is not well-studied. The aim of this study was to describe diaphragmatic function, diaphragmatic excursion (DE) and thickness fraction (DTF), in preterm infants < 30 weeks’ gestation supported by NIV-NAVA compared to NIPPV using bedside ultrasonography. Methods: In this consecutive prospective study, DE, diaphragmatic thickness at end of expiration (DTexp), end of inspiration (DTins), and DTF were assessed using bedside ultrasound. Lung aeration evaluation using lung ultrasound score (LUSs) was performed for the two groups. Diaphragmatic measurements and LUSs were compared for the 2 groups (NIV-NAVA group versus NIPPV group). Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software version 22. Results: Out of 70 infants evaluated, 40 were enrolled. Twenty infants were on NIV-NAVA (mean [SD] study age of 25.7 [0.9] weeks) and 20 infants were on NIPPV (mean [SD] study age of 25.1 [1.4] weeks p= 0.15). Baseline characteristics and respiratory parameters at the time of the scan, showed no significant difference between groups. DE was significantly higher in NIV-NAVA with a mean SD 4.7 (1.5) versus 3.5 (0.9) in NIPPV, p=0.007. Additionally, the mean (SD) of DTF for the NIV-NAVA group was 81.6 (30) vs 78.2 (27) for NIPPV group [p=0.71]. Both groups showed relatively high LUSs but no significant difference between groups [12.8 (2.6) vs 12.6 (2.6) p=0.8]. Conclusion: Preterm infants managed with NIV-NAVA showed significantly higher DE compared to those managed on NIPPV. Longitudinal studies to assess diaphragmatic function over time are needed. Trial Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05079412) Date of registration 09/30/2021 Abstract publication/presentation: Portions of this paper were presented at the Pediatric Academic Society (PAS) meeting in Denver, USA, May 2022 as poster presentation as well as at the 4th Neonatal Research Day- Toronto, Canada on April, 2022 as an oral presentation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".