MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using Bubble Contrast Transthoracic Echocardiogram to Individualize Peep Titration in a Patient With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure, Intracardiac Shunt

2025· article· en· W4410280513 on OpenAlexaff
Thiago Bassi, Irene Telías, Victoria McCredie

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracardiac injectionShunt (medical)CardiologyTransthoracic echocardiogramAcute respiratory failureRespiratory failureInternal medicineMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration is crucial in managing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), balancing lung recruitment and overdistension. Lung-heart interactions further complicate the identification of optimal PEEP levels; higher PEEP can reduce cardiac output by decreasing preload and increasing right ventricular afterload. This issue is particularly problematic in patients with intracardiac shunts. This case report illustrates a novel method using a bubble contrast transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) to individualize PEEP titration, aiming to avoid intrapulmonary shunting while minimizing intracardiac shunt. Case Description: A 52-year-old male with a history of smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and poorly managed chronic heart failure presented to the emergency department with worsening shortness of breath and retrosternal pain. Due to significant oxygen desaturation, the Emergency Team initiated non-invasive ventilation with bilevel-positive airway pressure (BiPAP) and contacted the Critical Care Team for further management. Upon examination, he had notable lower limb edema, a blood pressure of 177/107 mm Hg, respiratory rate of 27 bpm, and oxygen saturation of 95% on FiO2 of 1.0 (IPAP/EPAP 30/20 cm H2O). Lung auscultation revealed bilateral crackles, and widespread wheezing. Chest x-ray indicated mild pulmonary congestion and lab results showed respiratory acidosis and mild leukocytosis. Due to his progressive acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the patient was intubated and admitted to the intensive care unit. Due to profound and persistent hypoxemia, out keeping with the x-ray, the patient had a bubble contrast TTE to rule out intracardiac shunt. This TTE confirmed a suspected patent foramen oval and shunt. A repeat bubble test was performed during a PEEP response test to address ongoing oxygenation issues, increasing PEEP from 6 to 16 cm H2O (Figure 1). Monitoring included SpO2, respiratory compliance, and intracardiac shunt direction. Numerous bubbles entered the left heart at 16 cm H2O of PEEP; only a few were noted at 14 cm H2O, with none at 12 cm H2O or lower. Thus, the optimal PEEP was determined to be 12 cm H2O, leading to improved clinical status and eventual extubation. Discussion: Titrating PEEP according to lung mechanics and considering cardiopulmonary interactions in right-to-left cardiac shunts may enhance AHRF management. This case highlights the challenges of PEEP titration in these complex cases. The combined use of a bubble test with PEEP titration can help minimize intracardiac shunting whilst balancing the risks of intrapulmonary shunting from alveolar collapse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→