MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411224423 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202505-1056oc

Temporary Transvenous Diaphragm Neurostimulation for Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation (RESCUE-3)

2025· article· en· W4411224423 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Dres, Ralf Ewert, Steven A. Conrad, Ali Ataya, Joseph B. Shrager, Satar Mortaza, Flora Delamaire, Georg Nilius, Alexander Heine, N. Mehta, Judy Ways, Doug Evans, Giorgio Paulon, Farah Khandwala, Nick Berry, Kert Viele, Teresa Nelson, Thomas Similowski, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Ewan C. Goligher

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkLungpacer Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationNeurostimulationDiaphragm (acoustics)WeaningAnesthesiaInternal medicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Diaphragm dysfunction impedes weaning from mechanical ventilation. Transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation can increase diaphragm strength, but its impact on patient outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To test the safety and effectiveness of transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation to increase successful weaning in patients with difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in comparison with standard of care. METHODS: This international, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RESCUE-3) included adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ⩾96 hours who met readiness-to-wean criteria and failed two or more weaning attempts. Patients were randomized to twice-daily transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation (treatment) or standard of care (control). The primary outcome was successful weaning at Day 30. Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation to Day 30 and mortality at Day 30. The prespecified primary analysis utilized a Bayesian approach with borrowing of prior information from a previous Phase-II randomized trial, downweighted to account for possible differences in trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Because of slow enrollment and financial considerations, the trial was halted at the first interim analysis after 200 patients were randomized. Overall, 216 patients were randomized in the modified intent-to-treat population (treatment group, n = 102; control group n = 114). At Day 30, 71 (70%) patients in the treatment group and 69 (61%) patients in the control group were successfully weaned (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% credible interval = 1.01-1.78; posterior probability of superiority, 97.9%). Treatment reduced the duration of ventilation (adjusted difference, -2.5 d; 95% credible interval = -5.0 to 0.1; posterior probability of superiority, 97.1%). Serious adverse events were reported in 36% of patients in the treatment group and 24% of patients in the control group; 9.8% of patients in the treatment group and 10.5% of patients in the control group died (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% credible interval = 0.37-1.46; posterior probability of superiority, 80.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the trial was stopped early because of slow enrollment, transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation showed a high probability of potential benefit for weaning success but with a possible increase in serious adverse events.

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
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→