High-Flow Oscillatory Ventilation: A Possible Therapeutic Option for Pediatric Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-flow oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is a common rescue treatment in infants and children with respiratory failure. This type of ventilation is an effective technique in numerous diseases that affect a child in the postnatal period, such as ARDS, meconium aspiration syndrome (MIS), postnatal pulmonary bleeding and idiopathic pulmonary hypertension (IPH). Although this ventilation technique is commonly recognized as a valuable therapeutic option in the general pediatric population, this is not the same for children with congenital cardiovascular diseases. The key mechanism of oscillatory ventilation is continuous positive pressure administered within the airways via a small tidal volume at high frequency. Tidal volumes are between 1 and 3 mL/kg delivered at 5-15 Hz, equivalent to 300-900 breaths per minute. A few older studies conducted on humans and animals highlight that HFOV may be dangerous for congenital heart patients. According to these evidences, hemodynamic parameters such as blood pressure, wedge pressure, central venous pressure, heart rate and inotrope level can be dangerously changed for patients with congenital heart disease; therefore, oscillatory ventilation should be avoided. Numerous retrospective studies have pointed out how oscillatory ventilation constitutes a valid therapeutic option in children with congenital heart disease. Recently, new evidences have highlighted how hemodynamic parameters are modified in a non-significant way by this type of ventilation, remaining beneficial as in the normal pediatric population. This narrative review aims to describe the mechanisms of oscillatory ventilation and collect all the available evidences to support its use in pediatric patients with congenital heart problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".