A worldwide assessment of the mechanical ventilation in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Analysis of the VENTILAGROUP over time. A retrospective, multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The trend over time and across different geographical areas of outcomes and management with noninvasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation in patients admitted for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and treated with ventilatory support is unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes and identify variables associated with survival for patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [aeCOPD] who received noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation worldwide. METHODS: Retrospective, multi-national, and multicenter studies, including four observational cohort studies, were carried out in 1998, 2004, 2010, and 2016 for the VENTILAGROUP following the same methodology. RESULTS: A total of 1,848 patients from 1,253 ICUs in 38 countries admitted for aeCOPD and need of ventilatory support were identified in the four study cohorts and included in the study. The overall incidence of aeCOPD as a cause for ventilatory support at ICU admission significantly decreased over time and varied widely according to the gross national income. The mortality of patients admitted to ICU for aeCOPD and ventilatory support significantly decreased over time regardless of the geographical area and gross national income; however, there is a remarkable variability in ICU mortality according to geographical area and gross national income. The use of NPPV as the first attempt at ventilatory support has significantly increased over time, with a parallel reduction of invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of gross national income. CONCLUSION: In this worldwide observational study, including four sequential cohorts of patients over 18 years from 1998 to 2016, the mortality of patients admitted to ICU for aeCOPD and ventilatory support significantly decreased regardless of the geographical area and gross national income. Future research will need to investigate the reason for the remarkable variability in ICU mortality according to the geographical area, gross national income, and methods to select patients for the appropriate ventilatory support.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".