Case report: Foreign body aspiration requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Foreign body aspiration is a common cause of respiratory distress in pediatrics, but the diagnosis can be challenging given aspirated objects are mostly radiolucent on chest radiographs and there is often no witnessed choking event. We present a case of a patient who was initially managed as severe status asthmaticus, requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for refractory hypercarbia and hypoxemia, but was later found to have bilateral bronchial foreign body aspiration. This case is unique in its severity of illness, diagnostic dilemma with findings suggesting a more common diagnosis of asthma, and use of ECMO as a bridge to diagnosis and recovery. Patient case: A previously healthy 2-year-old boy presented during peak viral season with a 3-day history of fever, cough, coryza, and increased work of breathing over the prior 24 h. There was no reported history of choking or aspiration. He was diagnosed with asthma and treated with bronchodilator therapy. Physical examination revealed pulsus paradoxus, severe work of breathing with bilateral wheeze, and at times a silent chest. Chest radiographs showed bilateral lung hyperinflation. Following a brief period of stability on maximum bronchodilator therapies and bilevel positive pressure support, the patient had a rapid deterioration requiring endotracheal intubation, with subsequent cannulation to VA-ECMO. A diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy was performed and demonstrated bilateral foreign bodies, peanuts, in the right bronchus intermedius and the left mainstem bronchus. Removal of the foreign bodies was done by rigid bronchoscopy facilitating rapid wean from VA-ECMO and decannulation within 24 h of foreign body removal. Conclusion: Foreign body aspiration should be suspected in all patients presenting with atypical history and physical examination findings, or in patients with suspected common diagnoses who do not progress as expected or deteriorate after a period of stability. Extracorporeal life support can be used as a bridge to diagnosis and recovery in patients with hemodynamic or respiratory instability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".