MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379538037 · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04509-3

Mechanical ventilation in patients with acute brain injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4379538037 on OpenAlexaff
Karim Asehnoune, Paul Rooze, Chiara Robba, Marwan Bouras, Luciana Mascia, Raphaël Cinotti, Paolo Pelosi, Antoine Roquilly

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationARDSTidal volumeOdds ratioConfidence intervalAnesthesiaVentilation (architecture)Fraction of inspired oxygenMeta-analysisInternal medicineRespiratory systemLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To describe the potential effects of ventilatory strategies on the outcome of acute brain-injured patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Design Systematic review with an individual data meta-analysis. Setting Observational and interventional (before/after) studies published up to August 22nd, 2022, were considered for inclusion. We investigated the effects of low tidal volume Vt < 8 ml/Kg of IBW versus Vt > = 8 ml/Kg of IBW, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) < or > = 5 cmH 2 O and protective ventilation (association of both) on relevant clinical outcomes. Population Patients with acute brain injury (trauma or haemorrhagic stroke) with invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥ 24 h. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the duration of mechanical ventilation and the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO 2 )/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) ratio. Results The meta-analysis included eight studies with a total of 5639 patients. There was no difference in mortality between low and high tidal volume [Odds Ratio, OR 0.88 (95%Confidence Interval, CI 0.74 to 1.05), p = 0.16, I 2 = 20%], low and moderate to high PEEP [OR 0.8 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.07), p = 0.13, I 2 = 80%] or protective and non-protective ventilation [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.15), p = 0.6, I 2 = 11]. Low tidal volume [OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.21, p = 0.23, I 2 = 88%], moderate PEEP [OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.26), p = 0.9, I 2 = 21%] or protective ventilation [OR 1.22 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.58), p = 0.13, I 2 = 22%] did not affect the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Protective ventilation improved the PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio in the first five days of mechanical ventilation ( p < 0.01). Conclusions Low tidal volume, moderate to high PEEP, or protective ventilation were not associated with mortality and lower incidence of ARDS in patients with acute brain injury undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. However, protective ventilation improved oxygenation and could be safely considered in this setting. The exact role of ventilatory management on the outcome of patients with a severe brain injury needs to be more accurately delineated.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.039
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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