ArticleCritical care (London, England)2014
The biological effects of higher and lower positive end-expiratory pressure in pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute lung injury with intra-abdominal hypertension.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trajectory-based analysis of early mechanical ventilation PEEP levels and physiological parameter trajectories in ARDS patients and their association with the occurrence of gastrointestinal injury events.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Acute Compartment Syndrome and Intra-Abdominal Hypertension, Decompression, Current Pharmacotherapy, and Stable Gastric Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 Solution.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Preventing occludin tight-junction disruption via inhibition of microRNA-193b-5p attenuates viral load and influenza-induced lung injury.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023Article
- Procollagen I and III as Prognostic Markers in Patients Treated with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Intra-abdominal Pressure Has a Good Predictive Power for 28-Day Mortality: A Prospective Observational Study Conducted in Critically Ill Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Effects of Obesity on Pulmonary Inflammation and Remodeling in Experimental Moderate Acute Lung Injury.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Article
- Article
- Adjusting tidal volume to stress index in an open lung condition optimizes ventilation and prevents overdistension in an experimental model of lung injury and reduced chest wall compliance.Critical care (London, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), but the role of PEEP in minimizing lung injury remains controversial. We hypothesized that in the presence of acute lung injury (ALI) with IAH: 1) higher PEEP levels improve pulmonary morphofunction and minimize lung injury; and 2) the biological effects of higher PEEP are more effective in extrapulmonary (exp) than pulmonary (p) ALI.
methodsIn 48 adult male Wistar rats, ALIp and ALIexp were induced by Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally and intraperitoneally, respectively. After 24 hours, animals were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated (tidal volume of 6 mL/kg). IAH (15 mmHg) was induced and rats randomly assigned to PEEP of 5 (PEEP5), 7 (PEEP7) or 10 (PEEP10) cmH2O for 1 hour.
resultsIn both ALIp and ALIexp, higher PEEP levels improved oxygenation. PEEP10 increased alveolar hyperinflation and epithelial cell damage compared to PEEP5, independent of ALI etiology. In ALIp, PEEP7 and PEEP10 increased lung elastance compared to PEEP5 (4.3 ± 0.7 and 4.3 ± 0.9 versus 3.1 ± 0.3 cmH2O/mL, respectively, P <0.01), without changes in alveolar collapse, interleukin-6, caspase-3, type III procollagen, receptor for advanced glycation end-products, and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 expressions. Moreover, PEEP10 increased diaphragmatic injury compared to PEEP5. In ALIexp, PEEP7 decreased lung elastance and alveolar collapse compared to PEEP5 (2.3 ± 0.5 versus 3.6 ± 0.7 cmH2O/mL, P <0.02, and 27.2 (24.7 to 36.8) versus 44.2 (39.7 to 56.9)%, P <0.05, respectively), while PEEP7 and PEEP10 increased interleukin-6 and type III procollagen expressions, as well as type II epithelial cell damage compared to PEEP5.
conclusionsIn the current models of ALI with IAH, in contrast to our primary hypothesis, higher PEEP is more effective in ALIp than ALIexp as demonstrated by the activation of biological markers. Therefore, higher PEEP should be used cautiously in the presence of IAH and ALI, mainly in ALIexp.
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.