ArticleLung2013
Comparison of recruitment manoeuvres in ventilated sheep with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Article in Lung, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Description of ovine model for testing ventilator prototypes in the COVID-19 pandemic.Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion · 2020Article
- A comparison of four different models of acute respiratory distress syndrome in sheep.Respiratory research · 2020Article
- Driving-pressure-independent protective effects of open lung approach against experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Article
- Effect of Repeated Recruitment Manoeuvres on Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.The West Indian medical journal · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruitment manoeuvres are widely used in clinical practice to open the lung and prevent lung injury by derecruitment, although the evidence is still discussed. In this study two different recruitment manoeuvres were compared to no recruitment manoeuvres (control) in ventilated sheep with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), induced by lung lavage.
methodsWe performed a prospective, randomised study in 26 ventilated sheep with ARDS, to evaluate the effect of two different recruitment manoeuvres on gas exchange, blood pressure and lung injury. The two different recruitment manoeuvres, the high pressure recruitment manoeuvre (HPRM), with high peak pressure, and the smooth and moderate recruitment manoeuvre (SMRM), with lower peak pressure, were compared to controls (no recruitment) after disconnection. Oxygenation index and ventilation efficacy index were calculated to evaluate gas exchange. Lung injury was assessed by inflammatory response in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and blood and histology of the lung.
resultsOxygenation index improved significantly after both recruitment manoeuvres compared with controls, but no significant difference was found between the recruitment manoeuvres. Blood pressure decreased after HPRM but not after SMRM. HPRM induced a higher number of total cells and more neutrophils in the BALF. In the histology of the lung, mean alveolar size was increased in the dorsocranial region of the lung of SMRM compared to controls.
conclusionRecruitment manoeuvres improved oxygenation, but SMRM was superior, with respect to hemodynamics and pulmonary inflammation, in ventilated sheep suffering from ARDS induced by lung lavage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.