MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415850216 · doi:10.1186/s13054-025-05689-w

Use of rescue noninvasive ventilation for post-extubation respiratory failure

2025· article· en· W4415850216 on OpenAlexaff
Domenico Luca Grieco, Samir Jaber, Spyros Zakynthinos, Alexandre Demoule, Jean-Damien Ricard, Paolo Navalesi, Rosanna Vaschetto, Sami Hraiech, Kada Klouche, Jean Pierre Frat, Virginie Lemiale, Vito Fanelli, Gérald Chanques, Federico Longhini, Jordi Mancebo, Maria Rosaria Gualano, Bruno L. Ferreyro, Laurent Brochard, Massimo Antonelli, Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore, Daniele Natalini, Eleni Ischaki, Danielle Reuter, Indalecio Morán, Béatrice La Combe, Andrea De Gaetano, V. Marco Ranieri, Yassir Aarab, Élie Azoulay, Fouad Belafia, Guillaume Berquier, Matthieu Conseil, Andrea Costamagna, Laurence Dangers, Audrey De Jong, Julie Delemazure, Françesco Della Corte, Stèphane Gaudry, Francesca Grossi, Giovanni Carmine Iovino, Sylvain Jean‐Baptiste, Mohammed Laissi, Romaric Larcher, Matthieu Le Meur, Clément Leclaire, Paula Andrea Lopez, Sotirios Malachias, Marilena Matteo, Julienne Mayaux, Jonathan Messika, Clément Monet, Élise Morawiec, Laurent Papazian, Laura Platon, Damien Roux, Maria Teresa Santantonio, J.C. Suarez Montero, Eloisa Sofia Tanzarella, Flavia Toni, Luca S. Menga

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersFisher and Paykel HealthcareMinistero della SaluteGilead SciencesShionogiSanofiAlexion PharmaceuticalsPfizer
KeywordsNoninvasive ventilationRespiratory failureAcute respiratory failureMEDLINEMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Robust evidence supports the use of preemptive non-invasive ventilation (NIV) after extubation in selected high-risk patient cohorts. In contrast, current guidelines discourage the use of NIV as a rescue therapy for respiratory failure that develops later after extubation, based on earlier studies indicating a potential increase in hospital mortality due to delayed reintubation. Nonetheless, NIV continues to be employed in this setting. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial to assess the clinical outcomes of rescue NIV for post-extubation respiratory failure. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing high-flow with Venturi mask oxygen in hypoxemic patients after extubation, we included those who developed post-extubation respiratory failure according to prespecified criteria; patients who received rescue NIV per physician's decision were compared to those who received direct re-intubation. Criteria for re-intubation during NIV were prespecified. Odds ratio after inverse probability of treatment weighting and posterior probabilities by Bayesian regression are reported. RESULTS: Among 494 extubated patients, 147 developed respiratory failure while receiving oxygen therapy, occurring at a median of 37 h [IQR 13-85] after extubation: 83 (57%) were treated with rescue NIV and 64 (43%) received immediate re-intubation. The rate of NIV failure was 58%, without differences between patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and those with hypercapnia and/or respiratory distress (60% vs. 56%, p = 0.82). In the weighted cohort, the use of rescue NIV, compared to direct re-intubation, was associated with lower intensive care unit mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.31 [95%CI: 0.12-0.82], p = 0.019) and similar hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.01 [95%CI: 0.43-2.33], p = 0.99). The posterior probability that NIV reduced intensive care unit mortality was > 90% across all priors. The posterior probability that NIV did not increase hospital mortality was 44% under a noninformative prior, 47% under a skeptical prior, and 39% under a pessimistic prior. CONCLUSION: Rescue NIV for post-extubation respiratory failure is associated with high failure rates; however, when applied with well-defined criteria for reintubation, it does not appear to be clearly associated with increases in hospital mortality. A randomized trial to re-evaluate the efficacy of rescue NIV for post-extubation respiratory failure is warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02107183) on April 8th, 2014.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207