EIT guided evaluation of regional ventilation distributions in neonatal and pediatric ARDS: a prospective feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite international guidelines for lung protective ventilation in neonatal or pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (nARDS/ pARDS), prospective data on bedside monitoring tools for regional ventilation distribution and lung mechanics are still rare. As a bedside and radiation-free procedure, electrical impedance tomography (EIT) offers a practical and safe approach for analyzing regional ventilation distributions. Recent trials in adults have shown the efficacy of an individualized EIT guided strategy for the improvement of ventilator induced lung injury (VILI). Methods We performed a single-center prospective feasibility study from November/2021 to December/2023 in the department of neonatal and pediatric intensive care medicine at the University Children´s Hospital in Bonn. All patients with diagnosis of nARDS (or history of perinatal lung disease-PLD)/ pARDS were screened for study inclusion. In all patients a decremental PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) trial was performed with a continuous EIT monitoring for an individual analysis of the EIT guided pixel compliance (C EIT ) and PEEP finding (EIT-PEEP). In the offline analysis, further EIT derived indices, such as global inhomogeneity index (GI), and center of ventilation (CoV), were calculated. Results Overall, 40 EIT measurements were performed in 26 neonatal and pediatric patients (nARDS/PLD, n = 6; and pARDS, n = 20) within a predefined decremental PEEP trial. Thirteen patients were classified as having severe nARDS (PLD)/ pARDS with an Oxygen Saturation Index (OSI) > 12 or Oxygenation Index (OI) > 16. In-hospital mortality rate was 27% in the overall cohort. The median EIT-PEEP (11mbar) was calculated as lowest, as compared to the clinically set PEEP (11.5mbar, p < 0.001), and the ARDSnetwork PEEP table recommendation (ARDSnet-PEEP, 14mbar, p = 0.018). In patients with nARDS/PLD, the EIT-PEEP was calculated 3mbar below the clinically set PEEP ( p = 0.058) and 11 mbar below the ARDSnet-PEEP ( p = 0.01). In the linear regression analysis, EIT-PEEP and the dynamic compliance (C DYN ) at -2mbar presented a significant correlation with a Cohen´s R 2 of 0.265 (β: 0.886, p = 0.005). Conclusion EIT is feasible and can be performed safely in patients with diagnosis of nARDS/PLD and pARDS, even during ongoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. An individualized PEEP finding strategy according to the EIT compliance might optimize regional ventilation distribution in these patients and can potentially decrease VILI. Clinical trial registration The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (GCT; trial number: DRKS 00034905, Registration Date 15.08.2024). The registration was performed retrospectively after inclusion of the last patient.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".