MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392098475 · doi:10.1007/s44253-024-00035-4

Safety of primary nasotracheal intubation in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)

2024· article· en· W4392098475 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Ducharme-Crevier, Jamie Furlong-Dillard, Philipp Jung, Fabrizio Chiusolo, Matthew P. Malone, Shashikanth Ambati, Simon Parsons, Conrad Krawiec, Awni Al‐Subu, Lee Polikoff, Natalie Napolitano, Keiko M. Tarquinio, Asha Shenoi, Andrea Talukdar, Palen Mallory, John S. Giuliano, Ryan Breuer, Krista L. Kierys, Serena Kelly, Makoto Motomura, Ron C. Sanders, Ashley Freeman, Yuki Nagai, Lily Glater-Welt, Joseph F. Wilson, Mervin Loi, Michelle Adu‐Darko, Justine Shults, Vinay Nadkarni, Guillaume Émériaud, Akira Nishisaki

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine – Paediatric and Neonatal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalAlberta Children's HospitalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalAdverse effectIntubationPropensity score matchingPediatric intensive care unitRelative riskIntensive care unitAnesthesiaEmergency medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Nasal tracheal intubation (TI) represents a minority of all TI in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The risks and benefits of nasal TI are not well quantified. As such, safety and descriptive data regarding this practice are warranted. Methods We evaluated the association between TI route and safety outcomes in a prospectively collected quality improvement database (National Emergency Airway Registry for Children: NEAR4KIDS) from 2013 to 2020. The primary outcome was severe desaturation (SpO2 > 20% from baseline) and/or severe adverse TI-associated events (TIAEs), using NEAR4KIDS definitions. To balance patient, provider, and practice covariates, we utilized propensity score (PS) matching to compare the outcomes of nasal vs. oral TI. Results A total of 22,741 TIs [nasal 870 (3.8%), oral 21,871 (96.2%)] were reported from 60 PICUs. Infants were represented in higher proportion in the nasal TI than the oral TI (75.9%, vs 46.2%), as well as children with cardiac conditions (46.9% vs. 14.4%), both p < 0.001. Severe desaturation or severe TIAE occurred in 23.7% of nasal and 22.5% of oral TI (non-adjusted p = 0.408). With PS matching, the prevalence of severe desaturation and or severe adverse TIAEs was 23.6% of nasal vs. 19.8% of oral TI (absolute difference 3.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI): − 0.07, 7.7%), p = 0.055. First attempt success rate was 72.1% of nasal TI versus 69.2% of oral TI, p = 0.072. With PS matching, the success rate was not different between two groups (nasal 72.2% vs. oral 71.5%, p = 0.759). Conclusion In this large international prospective cohort study, the risk of severe peri-intubation complications was not significantly higher. Nasal TI is used in a minority of TI in PICUs, with substantial differences in patient, provider, and practice compared to oral TI. A prospective multicenter trial may be warranted to address the potential selection bias and to confirm the safety of nasal TI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine – Paediatric and NeonatalSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207