Outcomes of patients supported by mechanical ventilation and their families two months after discharge from pediatric intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The outcomes of children undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV) in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) remain poorly characterized and increasing knowledge in this area may lead to strategies that improve care. In this study, we reported the outcomes of children receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and/or non-invasive ventilation (NIV), 2 months after PICU discharge. Methods This is a post-hoc analysis of a single-center prospective study of PICU children followed at the PICU follow-up clinic at CHU Sainte-Justine. Eligible children were admitted to the PICU with ≥2 days of IMV or ≥4 days of NIV. Two months after PICU discharge, patients and families were evaluated by physicians and filled out questionnaires assessing Quality of life (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory ™ ), development milestones (Ages and Stages Questionnaire), and parental anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Results One hundred and fifty patients were included from October 2018 to December 2021; 106 patients received IMV (±NIV), and 44 patients received NIV exclusively. Admission diagnoses differed between groups, with 30.2% of patients in the IMV group admitted for a respiratory illness vs. 79.5% in the NIV group. For the entire cohort, QoL scores were 78.1% for the physical domain and 80.1% for the psychological domain, and were similar between groups. Children with a respiratory illness exhibited similar symptoms at follow-up whether they were supported by IMV vs. NIV. For developmental outcomes, only 22.2% of pre-school children had normal scores in all ASQ domains. In the entire cohort, symptoms of anxiety were reported in 29.9% and depression in 24.6 of patients% Conclusions PICU survivors undergoing mechanical ventilation, and their families, experienced significant morbidities 2 months after their critical illness, whether they received IMV or NIV. Children with respiratory illness exhibited a higher prevalence of persistent respiratory difficulties post PICU, whether they underwent IMV or NIV. Patients’ quality of life and parental symptoms of anxiety and depression did not differ according to the type of respiratory support. These findings justify the inclusion of patients receiving NIV in the PICU in follow-up assessments as well as those receiving IMV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".