MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

255: IMPACTS OF MECHANICAL VENTILATION ON PATIENTS AND FAMILIES TWO MONTHS AFTER CRITICAL ILLNESS

2022· article· en· W4313220578 on OpenAlexaff
Simon MacDonald, Geneviève Du Pont‐Thibodeau, Céline Thibault, Camille Jutras, Karen Harrington, Nadia Roumeliotis, Catherine Farrell, Jacques Lacroix, Laurence Ducharme‐Crevier

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationCritical illnessDepression (economics)Emergency departmentCohortQuality of life (healthcare)PediatricsVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaCritically illInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The outcomes of mechanically ventilated children surviving a critical illness remain poorly characterized, and increased knowledge may lead to strategies improving post-PICU care. We compared the outcomes of PICU survivors who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) vs. non-invasive ventilation (NIV) 2 months after PICU discharge. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of children admitted for ≥4 days with ≥2 days of IMV or ≥4 days of NIV to the PICU of CHU Sainte-Justine. Two months after PICU discharge, patients were evaluated at the follow-up clinic, and parents were asked to fill out questionnaires (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Hospital Anxiety, and Depression Scale). Continuous and dichotomous data were compared using Mann-Whitney and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: From Oct 2018 to Dec 2021, 152 patients were included. 106 patients received IMV (+/-NIV), and 46 patients exclusively received NIV. Duration of respiratory support (11.8+/-2.3 vs. 8.2 +/-3.1 days, p=0.22) was similar between groups, while duration of PICU stay was longer (34.1+/-9.2 vs 13.0+/-4.2 days, p=0.008) and worst PELOD was higher (10.4+/-0.4 vs 3.2+/-0.4, p=0.001) in IMV patients. The diagnosis was a respiratory illness in 30.2% of IMV vs. 78.3% of NIV patients (p=0.04). Quality of life scores were similar between groups (physical score 77.3+/-21.1% vs. 79.7+/-17.4%, p=0.73 and psychological score 79.7+/-16.0% vs 80.3+/-18.3% p=0.68). At follow-up, more patients in the NIV group had persistent respiratory difficulties (26.7% vs. 10.4%, p=0.01). Reported rates of fatigue (19.0% vs. 8.0%, p= 0.18), voice change (10.4% vs. 6.6%, p=0.44), and sleep disorders (17.1% vs. 8.9%, p=0.11) were similar between groups. There was no difference in parental anxiety (28.9 vs. 35.0%, p=0.83) and depression symptoms (24.7% vs. 23.5%, p=0.94) between groups. Conclusions: PICU survivors and their family experienced physical and neurobehavioral morbidities 2 months after their critical illness, whether they received IMV or NIV. Patients’ quality of life and parental symptoms of anxiety and depression did not differ according to the respiratory support. Persistent respiratory difficulties were more common in the NIV group. These findings suggest that PICU follow-up clinics should include patients receiving NIV.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→