MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399466189 · doi:10.1186/s13613-024-01297-z

Impact of extended lung protection during mechanical ventilation on lung recovery in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a phase II randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4399466189 on OpenAlexaff
Eduardo Leite Vieira Costa, Glasiele Alcala, Mauro R. Tucci, Ewan C. Goligher, Caio C. A. Morais, José Dianti, Miyuki A. P. Nakamura, Larissa B. Oliveira, Sérgio M. Pereira, Carlos Toufen, Carmen Sílvia Valente Barbas, Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho, Marcelo B. P. Amato

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFinanciadora de Estudos e ProjetosFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsARDSMedicineRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationLungVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaClinical endpointAnesthesiologyIntensive careSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Protective ventilation seems crucial during early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), but the optimal duration of lung protection remains undefined. High driving pressures (ΔP) and excessive patient ventilatory drive may hinder lung recovery, resulting in self-inflicted lung injury. The hidden nature of the ΔP generated by patient effort complicates the situation further. Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of an extended lung protection strategy that includes a stepwise protocol to control the patient ventilatory drive, assessing its impact on lung recovery. Methods We conducted a single-center randomized study on patients with moderate/severe COVID-19-ARDS with low respiratory system compliance (C RS < 0.6 (mL/Kg)/cmH 2 O). The intervention group received a ventilation strategy guided by Electrical Impedance Tomography aimed at minimizing ΔP and patient ventilatory drive. The control group received the ARDSNet low-PEEP strategy. The primary outcome was the modified lung injury score ( m LIS), a composite measure that integrated daily measurements of C RS , along with oxygen requirements, oxygenation, and X-rays up to day 28. The m LIS score was also hierarchically adjusted for survival and extubation rates. Results The study ended prematurely after three consecutive months without patient enrollment, attributed to the pandemic subsiding. The intention-to-treat analysis included 76 patients, with 37 randomized to the intervention group. The average m LIS score up to 28 days was not different between groups (P = 0.95, primary outcome). However, the intervention group showed a faster improvement in the m LIS (1.4 vs. 7.2 days to reach 63% of maximum improvement; P < 0.001), driven by oxygenation and sustained improvement of X-ray (P = 0.001). The intervention group demonstrated a sustained increase in C RS up to day 28 (P = 0.009) and also experienced a shorter time from randomization to room-air breathing (P = 0.02). Survival at 28 days and time until liberation from the ventilator were not different between groups. Conclusions The implementation of an individualized PEEP strategy alongside extended lung protection appears viable. Promising secondary outcomes suggested a faster lung recovery, endorsing further examination of this strategy in a larger trial. Clinical trial registration This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT04497454) on August 04, 2020.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207