Sedation-Ventilation Interaction in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ventilation and sedation are used for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but their optimal combination to minimize the risks of ventilation is not well understood. Research Question What are the individual effects and interactions of inspiratory and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), sedation, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on respiratory drive, effort, and lung-distending pressure in patients with AHRF triggering the ventilator? Study Design and Methods In this secondary exploratory analysis of a trial of lung and diaphragm protection in AHRF, inspiratory pressure, sedation, PEEP, and VV-ECMO were titrated while respiratory drive (airway pressure in the first 100 ms [P 0.1 ]), effort (esophageal pressure swing [|ΔPes|]), and lung-distending pressure (dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure [ΔP L,dyn ]) were recorded. Associations were evaluated using linear mixed-effects regression models including prespecified terms for potential interactions. Results The study included 223 individual measurements of P 0.1 and 235 individual measurements of |ΔPes| and ΔP L,dyn from 30 patients. Propofol-attenuated P 0.1 (–0.4 cm H 2 O; 95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 cm H 2 O per 10-μm/kg/min increase), |ΔPes| (–2.5 cm H 2 O; 95% CI, –3.4 to –1.7 cm H 2 O per 10-μm/kg/min increase), and ΔP L,dyn (–1.6 cm H 2 O; 95% CI, –2.3 to –0.8 cm H 2 O per 10-μm/kg/min increase). The effect of inspiratory pressure on |ΔPes| varied depending on propofol dose: with higher propofol dose, inspiratory pressure resulted in higher ΔP L,dyn . With VV-ECMO, patients (n = 16) showed significantly lower |ΔPes| (–10 cm H 2 O; 95% CI, –17.5 to –2.5 cm H 2 O) and required less sedation to reduce |ΔPes| than without VV-ECMO (n = 14). Interpretation Mechanical ventilation, sedation, and VV-ECMO exert interdependent effects on respiratory drive, effort, and lung-distending pressure in AHRF. Patients receiving VV-ECMO require less sedation to control respiratory effort.
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) | 0.000 | 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".