MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413107872 · doi:10.1111/aas.70104

High‐Flow Tracheal Oxygen for Weaning Mechanically Ventilated Tracheostomized Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Study

2025· article· en· W4413107872 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Al Duhailib, Amro Hajja, Ghaleb Shacfe, Mohamed Tlayjeh, Munirah Alshalawi, Ahmed Hegazy, Bram Rochwerg, Marat Slessarev

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeaningMedicineMechanical ventilationRetrospective cohort studyCritically illAnesthesiaSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) encounter significant morbidity and mortality in the ICU. High-flow tracheal oxygen (HFTO) is used in tracheostomized patients to facilitate MV weaning. However, its impact on clinical outcomes is unclear. We aimed to assess the efficacy of early versus rescue HFTO in tracheostomized patients for successful MV weaning. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study, included MV tracheostomized patients between 2018 and 2024, who received HFTO for MV weaning. The early group received HFTO as the initial modality of MV weaning, while the rescue group received HFTO after failing initial attempts of conventional oxygen therapy delivered through a tracheal mask. The WIND (Weaning according to a New Definition) criteria was used to stratify patients into short, difficult, and prolonged weaning. The primary outcome was successful MV liberation at 60 days from the first successful separation attempt (tolerating ≥ 1 h off MV). Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 60 days and factors associated with successful MV weaning. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included, with a median APACHE II of 17 (IQR 12-21). The most common reason for ICU admission was acute respiratory failure (n = 40, 51.9%). Median duration of invasive MV was 19 (IQR 13-28) days. Most patients were classified either as prolonged 51 (66.2%) or difficult weaning 18 (23.4%). Overall, 57 (74.0%) patients were successfully weaned from MV at 60 days. Two-thirds of patients received rescue HFTO, while one-third received early HFTO. Early and rescue HFTO showed no difference in successful MV weaning rates (76.9% vs. 72.5%, p = 0.679) or VFDs at 60 days (29.0, IQR 20.8-42.2 days vs. 27.4 IQR 14.3-50.8 days, p = 0.702). Male gender (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.88) and hypertension (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.82) were associated with lower odds of successful MV weaning. CONCLUSION: The timing of HFTO initiation (early vs. rescue) in tracheostomized patients may not have an impact on the rate of liberation from MV at 60 days. Future research should explore whether earlier implementation of HFTO enhances MV weaning. EDITORIAL COMMENT: In this retrospective study, timing of high-flow tracheal oxygen did not have an association with time of weaning from mechanical ventilation in tracheostomized adult patients in this cohort.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaSame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207