MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

668: COMPLEX FAILURE OF NIV IN CHILDREN: LOOKING BEYOND INTUBATION TO CLINICALLY MEANINGFUL OUTCOMES

2023· article· en· W4389729976 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Napolitano, Yuan An, Danielle Traynor, Nancy-Ann Kelly, Guillaume Émériaud, Akira Nishisaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationMedical emergencyHumanitiesAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a standard of care to support children with acute respiratory failure. NIV failure is often reported as the need for tracheal intubation (TI). Indication for TI is subject to provider preference and may not link to outcomes. We developed a new patient-centered NIV failure definition: complex NIV failure. Aim to describe the incidence and characteristics of complex NIV failure using an electronic health record data over 5 years from a large academic PICU in the US. Methods: Single center, retrospective study of an index PICU admission with initial primary NIV exposure from 2015-2019. Exclusions by the following criteria: >18y, existing tracheostomy, chronic home NIV use, active DNR/DNI, post-extubation NIV, and NIV exposure duration < 60min. Complex NIV failure was defined as: 1) ICU mortality, 2) new tracheostomy, 3) invasive ventilation post NIV for > 10 days, 4) Relevant adverse events during TI (cardiac arrest, hypotension requiring intervention, dysrhythmia, emesis with aspiration, or pneumothorax/ pneumomediastinum), or 5) severe desaturation during TI (SpO2>90% after preoxygenation and lowest SpO2 during intubation of < 70%). Median with interquartile range (IQR). Chi-square for categorical analysis, Wilcoxon rank-sum for non-normally distributed variables. Results: 9,857 (49%) out of 20,059 ICU admissions had an exposure to NIV. 3,997 index PICU admissions with NIV exposure met inclusion criteria. 106 (2.7%) of these NIV patients led to TI. Complex NIV failure occurred in 203 (5.5%). Median age 2.0y [0.84-6.18] for success and 4.22y [0.87-11.49] for complex failures (p< 0.001). NIV duration was 22 [7-68] hrs in complex failure vs 26 [13-48] in NIV success (p=0.10). TI rate (success 1.3% vs failure 27%, p< 0.001), total ventilation support time (success median 30 [15-59] hrs and failure 412 [241-756] hrs, p< 0.001) and length of ICU stay (success median 2.5 [1.5-4.7] days and failure 27.6 [15.9-43.1] days, p< 0.001) were significantly different. Conclusions: Complex NIV failure occurred in 5% patients receiving primary NIV for acute support in the PICU and represent a different population than the usual definition based on TI. This new patient-oriented definition may be utilized to identify high risk populations and trajectory of care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques→French-language works237,207→