MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409258575 · doi:10.1016/j.chstcc.2025.100156

Mapping the Epidemiologic Features of Endotracheal Tube Obstruction

2025· article· en· W4409258575 on OpenAlexaff
Vimal Bhardwaj, Abhishek Samprathi, Ross Prager, John Basmaji, Nicolás Orozco, Jose Chacko, Arjun Alva

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Critical Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndotracheal tubeEpidemiologyMedicineTube (container)Computer scienceSurgeryPathologyEngineeringIntubationMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Endotracheal tube blockages (ETBs) are a common yet often overlooked cause of weaning failure, ventilator dyssynchrony, and hypoxia in the ICU, with limited studies on their prevalence, clinical factors, and outcomes. Research Question What are the incidence, risk factors, and associated clinical and ventilator factors of ETBs in ventilated patients in the ICU? Study Design and Methods We assessed 369 endotracheal tubes (ETTs) of mechanically ventilated patients after extubation. This prospective observational study was conducted at the tertiary cardiothoracic ICUs (CICUs) and medical ICUs (MICUs) of Narayana Health City, Bengaluru, India. Tubes were inspected visually and were cut at the point of maximum blockage, and cross-sectional images captured with a 12-megapixel camera were analyzed for ETB percentage using the SketchAndCalc algorithm. Results Of the 369 ETTs assessed, ETBs were categorized as showing low (0%-9%), moderate (10%-49%), and severe (> 50%) occlusion. In the CICU, severe ETBs was observed in < 2% of patients, compared with 4% of patients in the MICU, whereas moderate ETBs were present in 27.9% of patients in the CICU and 16.5% of patients in the MICU. On univariable analysis, suction type (β = 9.62 [95% CI, 5.27-13.98]; P < .01), peak pressure (P peak ; β = 1.73 [95% CI, 1.38-2.08]; P < .01), coagulopathy (β = 9.42 [95% CI, 4.22-14.62]; P < .01), and ICU type (β = 9.62 [95% CI, 5.28-13.96]; P < .01) were statistically significant. Multivariable regression analysis showed only P peak (β = 1.65 [95% CI, 1.28-2.02]; P < .01), coagulopathy (β = 8.02 [95% CI, 3.26-12.79]; P < .01) and larger number of days receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (β = 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01-0.03]; P < .01) to be significant factors associated with ETB percentage. Interpretation Moderate ETB was more prevalent in patients in the ICU, with significant factors including coagulopathy, closed suction practice, and mechanical ventilation duration. P peak alarms lacked clinical impact, despite statistical significance. Clinical Trial Registry Clinical Trial Registry-India; No.: CTRI/2023/10/058184; URL: www.ctri.nic.in

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHEST Critical CareSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207