ArticleCurrent therapeutic research, clinical and experimental2013
Efficacy of lung recruitment maneuver with high-level positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with influenza-associated acute respiratory distress: a single-center prospective study.
Article in Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe latest data released to the public from the Chinese Ministry of Health reported 120,940 confirmed H1N1 cases and 659 deaths on the Chinese mainland.
objectiveWe performed a prospective, single-center study to investigate the efficacy of lung recruitment maneuver (RM) with high-level positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with the 2009 influenza A (H1N1)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
methodsEighty-four patients with H1N1-associated ARDS were admitted to emergency intensive care units between October 2009 and February 2012. During pressure control ventilation, if arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) is consistently <88% for >30 minutes, an RM with high-level PEEP is performed to normalize lung volume at 30 cmH2O for 60 seconds. The RM was considered initially a responder if SpO2 increased >3% within 15 minutes; otherwise, an SpO2 increase <3% would be considered initially a nonresponder. Variations on oxygen metabolism and hemodynamic parameters were also measured before and after initial RM with high-level PEEP.
resultsAfter the initial RM, 40 patients (47.6%) with influenza-associated ARDS displayed an increase (≥3%) in SpO2 (the responder group), and 44 patients (52.4%) had no significant improvement (<3%) in SpO2 (the nonresponder group). Among 84 patients with influenza-associated ARDS, 56 patients survived and 28 patients died. There was significant difference in mortality rate between the responder group and the nonresponder group (7 out of 40 vs 18 out of 44; P = 0.019). The initial PEEP level in the responder group was lower than that of the nonresponder group (P = 0.028). The initial mean duration of mechanical ventilation in the responder group was also shorter than that of the nonresponder group (P = 0.011). Furthermore, the initial dynamic lung-thorax compliance was obviously higher in the initially responder group than in the nonresponder group (P = 0.038).
conclusionsInitial response of lung RM with high-level PEEP may be associated with good clinical outcome of patients with influenza-associated ARDS. The initial PEEP level, duration of mechanical ventilation, and dynamic lung-thorax compliance dynamic lung-thorax compliance may be potential factors in influencing the initial response to RM.
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.