ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2013
Electrical impedance tomography to evaluate air distribution prior to extubation in very-low-birth-weight infants: a feasibility study.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of an anatomical atlas in real-time EIT reconstructions of ventilation and pulsatile perfusion in preterm infants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Electrical impedance tomography in neonates: a review.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- The newborn delivery room of tomorrow: emerging and future technologies.Pediatric research · 2024Review
- Clinical Applicability of Electrical Impedance Tomography in Patient-Tailored Ventilation: A Narrative Review.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Electrical impedance tomography in perioperative medicine: careful respiratory monitoring for tailored interventions.BMC anesthesiology · 2019Review
- Role of electrical impedance tomography in clinical practice in pediatric respiratory medicine.ISRN pediatrics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNasal continuous positive airway pressure is used as a standard of care after extubation in very-low-birth-weight infants. A pressure of 5 cmH2O is usually applied regardless of individual differences in lung compliance. Current methods for evaluation of lung compliance and air distribution in the lungs are thus imprecise for preterm infants. This study used electrical impedance tomography to determine the feasibility of evaluating the positive end-expiratory pressure level associated with a more homogeneous air distribution within the lungs before extubation.
methodsVentilation homogeneity was defined by electrical impedance tomography as the ratio of ventilation between dependent and non-dependent lung areas. The best ventilation homogeneity was achieved when this ratio was equal to 1. Just before extubation, decremental expiratory pressure levels were applied (8, 7, 6 and 5 cmH(2)0; 3 minutes each step), and the pressure that determined the best ventilation homogeneity was defined as the best positive end-expiratory pressure.
resultsThe best positive end-expiratory pressure value was 6.3 ± 1.1 cmH(2)0, and the mean continuous positive airway pressure applied after extubation was 5.2 ± 0.4 cmH(2)0 (p = 0.002). The extubation failure rate was 21.4%. X-Ray and blood gases after extubation were also checked.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that electrical impedance tomography can be safely and successfully used in patients ready for extubation to suggest the best ventilation homogeneity, which is influenced by the level of expiratory pressure applied. In this feasibility study, the best lung compliance was found with pressure levels higher than the continuous positive airway pressure levels that are usually applied for routine extubation.
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.