Physiologic Effects of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Blood flow rate affects mixed venous oxygenation (SvO2) during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with possible effects on the pulmonary circulation and the right heart function. Objectives To describe the physiologic effects of different levels of SvO2 obtained by changing ECMO blood flow in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving ECMO and controlled mechanical ventilation. Methods Low (SvO2 target, 70–75%), intermediate (SvO2 target, 75–80%), and high (SvO2 target, >80%) ECMO blood flows were applied for 30 minutes in random order in 20 patients. Mechanical ventilation settings were left unchanged. The hemodynamic and pulmonary effects were assessed with pulmonary artery catheter and electrical impedance tomography. Measurements and Main Results Cardiac output decreased from low to intermediate and to high blood flow/SvO2 (9.2 [6.2–10.9] vs. 8.3 [5.9–9.8] vs. 7.9 [6.5–9.1] L/min; P = 0.014), as well as mean pulmonary artery pressure (34 ± 6 vs. 31 ± 6 vs. 30 ± 5 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and right ventricular stroke work index (14.2 ± 4.4 vs. 12.2 ± 3.6 vs. 11.4 ± 3.2 g × m/beat/m2; P = 0.002). Cardiac output was inversely correlated with mixed venous and arterial Po2 values (R2 = 0.257; P = 0.031; and R2 = 0.324; P = 0.05). Pulmonary artery pressure was correlated with decreasing mixed venous Po2 (R2 = 0.29; P < 0.001) and with increasing cardiac output (R2 = 0.378; P < 0.007). Measures of V̇/Q̇ mismatch did not differ between the three steps. Conclusions In patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, increased ECMO blood flow rate resulting in higher SvO2 decreases pulmonary artery pressure, cardiac output, and right heart workload.
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".