MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393002975 · doi:10.1186/s13063-024-08038-4

The Diaphragmatic Initiated Ventilatory Assist (DIVA) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing rates of extubation failure in extremely premature infants undergoing extubation to non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

2024· article· en· W4393002975 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Matlock, Sarah J. Ratcliffe, Sherry E. Courtney, Haresh Kirpalani, Kimberly Firestone, Howard Stein, Kevin Dysart, Karen Warren, Mitchell Goldstein, Kelli Lund, Aruna Natarajan, Ejigayehu Demissie, Elizabeth E. Foglia

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMedicineSpontaneous breathing trialBronchopulmonary dysplasiaAnesthesiaVentilation (architecture)Randomized controlled trialRespiratory failureMechanical ventilationGestational agePeak inspiratory pressureTidal volumeSurgeryRespiratory systemInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Invasive mechanical ventilation contributes to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the most common complication of prematurity and the leading respiratory cause of childhood morbidity. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) may limit invasive ventilation exposure and can be either synchronized or non-synchronized (NS). Pooled data suggest synchronized forms may be superior. Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) delivers NIV synchronized to the neural signal for breathing, which is detected with a specialized catheter. The DIVA (Diaphragmatic Initiated Ventilatory Assist) trial aims to determine in infants born 24 0/7 –27 6/7 weeks’ gestation undergoing extubation whether NIV-NAVA compared to non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NS-NIPPV) reduces the incidence of extubation failure within 5 days of extubation. Methods This is a prospective, unblinded, pragmatic, multicenter phase III randomized clinical trial. Inclusion criteria are preterm infants 24–27 6/7 weeks gestational age who were intubated within the first 7 days of life for at least 12 h and are undergoing extubation in the first 28 postnatal days. All sites will enter an initial run-in phase, where all infants are allocated to NIV-NAVA, and an independent technical committee assesses site performance. Subsequently, all enrolled infants are randomized to NIV-NAVA or NS-NIPPV at extubation. The primary outcome is extubation failure within 5 days of extubation, defined as any of the following: (1) rise in FiO 2 at least 20% from pre-extubation for > 2 h, (2) pH ≤ 7.20 or pCO 2 ≥ 70 mmHg; (3) > 1 apnea requiring positive pressure ventilation (PPV) or ≥ 6 apneas requiring stimulation within 6 h; (4) emergent intubation for cardiovascular instability or surgery. Our sample size of 478 provides 90% power to detect a 15% absolute reduction in the primary outcome. Enrolled infants will be followed for safety and secondary outcomes through 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age, discharge, death, or transfer. Discussion The DIVA trial is the first large multicenter trial designed to assess the impact of NIV-NAVA on relevant clinical outcomes for preterm infants. The DIVA trial design incorporates input from clinical NAVA experts and includes innovative features, such as a run-in phase, to ensure consistent technical performance across sites. Trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , trial identifier NCT05446272 , registered July 6, 2022.

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)0.014
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.004

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207