MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390013331 · doi:10.1186/s13613-023-01230-w

Pendelluft in hypoxemic patients resuming spontaneous breathing: proportional modes versus pressure support ventilation

2023· article· en· W4390013331 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel H. Arellano, Roberto Brito, Caio C. A. Morais, Pablo Ruiz-Rudolph, Abraham I. J. Gajardo, Dannette V. Guiñez, Marioli T. Lazo, Ivan Ramirez‐Moral, Verónica A. Rojas, María A. Cerda, Juan N. Medel, Víctor Illanes, Nivia R. Estuardo, Alejandro Bruhn, Laurent Brochard, Marcelo B. P. Amato, Rodrigo Cornejo

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloUniversidad de Chile
KeywordsPressure support ventilationMedicineARDSTidal volumeVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaRespiratory minute volumeMechanical ventilationLung volumesInternal medicineCardiologyRespiratory systemLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Internal redistribution of gas, referred to as pendelluft, is a new potential mechanism of effort-dependent lung injury. Neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) and proportional assist ventilation (PAV +) follow the patient’s respiratory effort and improve synchrony compared with pressure support ventilation (PSV). Whether these modes could prevent the development of pendelluft compared with PSV is unknown. We aimed to compare pendelluft magnitude during PAV + and NAVA versus PSV in patients with resolving acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods Patients received either NAVA, PAV + , or PSV in a crossover trial for 20-min using comparable assistance levels after controlled ventilation (> 72 h). We assessed pendelluft (the percentage of lost volume from the non-dependent lung region displaced to the dependent region during inspiration), drive (as the delta esophageal swing of the first 100 ms [ΔP es 100 ms ]) and inspiratory effort (as the esophageal pressure–time product per minute [PTP min ]). We performed repeated measures analysis with post-hoc tests and mixed-effects models. Results Twenty patients mechanically ventilated for 9 [5–14] days were monitored. Despite matching for a similar tidal volume, respiratory drive and inspiratory effort were slightly higher with NAVA and PAV + compared with PSV (ΔP es 100 ms of –2.8 [−3.8–−1.9] cm H 2 O, −3.6 [−3.9–−2.4] cm H 2 O and −2.1 [−2.5–−1.1] cm H 2 O, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons; PTP min of 155 [118–209] cm H 2 O s/min, 197 [145–269] cm H 2 O s/min, and 134 [93–169] cm H 2 O s/min, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Pendelluft magnitude was higher in NAVA (12 ± 7%) and PAV + (13 ± 7%) compared with PSV (8 ± 6%), p < 0.001. Pendelluft magnitude was strongly associated with respiratory drive (β = -2.771, p-value < 0.001) and inspiratory effort ( β = 0.026, p < 0.001), independent of the ventilatory mode. A higher magnitude of pendelluft in proportional modes compared with PSV existed after adjusting for PTP min ( β = 2.606, p = 0.010 for NAVA, and β = 3.360, p = 0.004 for PAV +), and only for PAV + when adjusted for respiratory drive (β = 2.643, p = 0.009 for PAV +). Conclusions Pendelluft magnitude is associated with respiratory drive and inspiratory effort. Proportional modes do not prevent its occurrence in resolving ARDS compared with PSV.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207