Association of Noninvasive Respiratory Support with Extubation Outcomes in Brain-injured Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Secondary Analysis of the ENIO Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Noninvasive respiratory support using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) can decrease the risk of reintubation in patients being liberated from mechanical ventilation, but effects in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) are unknown. Objectives To evaluate the association between postextubation noninvasive respiratory support and reintubation in patients with ABI being liberated from mechanical ventilation. Methods This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study of mechanically ventilated patients with ABI (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT 03400904). The primary endpoint was reintubation during ICU admission. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models with patient-level covariates and random intercepts for hospital and country to evaluate the association between prophylactic (i.e., planned) HFNC or NIPPV and reintubation. Measurements and Main Results 1,115 patients were included from 62 hospitals and 19 countries, of whom 267 received HFNC or NIPPV following extubation (23.9%). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, neither prophylactic HFNC nor NIPPV was associated with decreased odds of reintubation (respectively, odds ratios of 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.54–1.73] and 0.63 [0.30–1.32]). Findings remained consistent in sensitivity analyses accounting for alternate adjustment procedures, missing data, shorter time frames of the primary endpoint, and competing risks precluding reintubation. In a Bayesian analysis using skeptical and data-driven priors, the probabilities of reduced reintubation ranged from 17% to 34% for HFNC and from 46% to 74% for NIPPV. Conclusions In a large cohort of brain-injured patients undergoing liberation from mechanical ventilation, prophylactic use of HFNC and NIPPV were not associated with reintubation. Prospective trials are needed to confirm treatment effects in this population. Primary study registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03400904).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".