MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308835066 · doi:10.4187/respcare.10389

Mechanical Ventilation in ARDS With an Automatic Resuscitator

2022· article· en· W4308835066 on OpenAlexafffund
Mayson LA Sousa, Bhushan H. Katira, Doreen Engelberts, Vanessa Hsing, Annia Schreiber, Annemijn H. Jonkman, Martin Post, Paul Dorian, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacsUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineARDSTidal volumePlateau pressureVentilation (architecture)Positive end-expiratory pressureMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaIntensive careRespiratory physiologyLungRespiratory systemInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Oxylator is an automatic resuscitator, powered only by an oxygen cylinder with no electricity required, that could be used in acute respiratory failure in situations in which standard mechanical ventilation is not available or feasible. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of mechanical ventilation by using this automatic resuscitator in an animal model of ARDS. METHODS: A randomized experimental study in a porcine ARDS model with 12 pigs randomized to the Oxylator group or the control group (6 per group) and ventilated for 4 h. In the Oxylator group, peak pressure was set at 20 cm H 2 O and PEEP was set at the lowest observed breathing frequency during a decremental PEEP titration. The control pigs were ventilated with a conventional ventilator by using protective settings and PEEP at the crossing point of collapse and overdistention, as indicated by electrical impedance tomography. Our end points were feasibility and safety as well as respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and hemodynamics. RESULTS: After lung injury, the mean ± SD respiratory system compliance and P aO 2 /F IO 2 were 13 ± 2 mL/cm H 2 O and 61 ± 17 mm Hg, respectively. The mean ± SD total PEEP was 10 ± 2 cm H 2 O and 13 ± 2 cm H 2 O in the control and Oxylator groups, respectively ( P = .046). The mean plateau pressure was kept to < 30 cm H 2 O in both groups. In the Oxylator group, the tidal volume was transiently > 8 mL/kg but was 6 ± 0.4 mL/kg at 4 h, whereas the breathing frequency increased from 38 ± 4 to 48 ± 3 breaths/min ( P < .001). There was no difference in driving pressure, compliance, P aO 2 /F IO 2 , and pulmonary shunt between the groups. The mean ± SD P aCO 2 was higher in the Oxylator group after 4 h, 74 ± 9 mm Hg versus 58 ± 6 mm Hg ( P < .001). There were no differences in hemodynamics between the groups, including blood pressure and cardiac output. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mechanical ventilation by using an automatic resuscitator and a fixed pressure setting in an ARDS animal model was feasible and safe.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207