MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361301739 · doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07163-w

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Proportional Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation: the PROMIZING study

2023· article· en· W4361301739 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen J. Bosma, Claudio M. Martin, Karen E. A. Burns, Jordi Mancebo Cortes, J.C. Suarez Montero, Yoanna Skrobik, Kevin E. Thorpe, André Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral, Yaseen M. Arabi, John Basmaji, G. Béduneau, François Beloncle, Guillaume Carteaux, Emmanuel Charbonney, Alexandre Demoule, Martin Dres, Vito Fanelli, Anna Geagea, Ewan C. Goligher, François Lellouche, Tommaso Maraffi, Alain Mercat, Pablo Rodríguez, Jason Shahin, Stephanie Sibley, Savino Spadaro, Katerina Vaporidi, M. Elizabeth Wilcox, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecToronto General HospitalNorth York General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research Institute
FundersArts and Humanities Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationProtocol (science)Duration (music)Ventilation (architecture)Research designPhysical therapyAnesthesiaSurgeryAlternative medicineEngineeringStatisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) is a mechanical ventilation mode that delivers assistance to breathe in proportion to the patient's effort. The proportional assistance, called the gain, can be adjusted by the clinician to maintain the patient's respiratory effort or workload within a normal range. Short-term and physiological benefits of this mode compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) include better patient-ventilator synchrony and a more physiological response to changes in ventilatory demand. METHODS: The objective of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if, for patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilation with PAV+ will result in a shorter time to successful extubation than with PSV. This multi-centre open-label clinical trial plans to involve approximately 20 sites in several continents. Once eligibility is determined, patients must tolerate a short-term PSV trial and either (1) not meet general weaning criteria or (2) fail a 2-min Zero Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Trial using the rapid shallow breathing index, or (3) fail a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), in this sequence. Then, participants in this study will be randomized to either PSV or PAV+ in a 1:1 ratio. PAV+ will be set according to a target of muscular pressure. The weaning process will be identical in the two arms. Time to liberation will be the primary outcome; ventilator-free days and other outcomes will be measured. DISCUSSION: Meta-analyses comparing PAV+ to PSV suggest PAV+ may benefit patients and decrease healthcare costs but no powered study to date has targeted the difficult to wean patient population most likely to benefit from the intervention, or used consistent timing for the implementation of PAV+. Our enrolment strategy, primary outcome measure, and liberation approaches may be useful for studying mechanical ventilation and weaning and can offer important results for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02447692 . Prospectively registered on May 19, 2015.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207