ArticlePloS one2016
Inhibitory Effect of Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation on Gastroesophageal Reflux.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of upper airway obstruction or hypoxia on gastroesophageal reflux in newborn lambs.Pediatric research · 2021Article
- Long-Term Non-invasive Ventilation in Children: Current Use, Indications, and Contraindications.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation can lead to esophageal insufflations and in turn to gastric distension. The fact that the latter induces transient relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter implies that it may increase gastroesophageal refluxes. We previously reported that nasal Pressure Support Ventilation (nPSV), contrary to nasal Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (nNAVA), triggers active inspiratory laryngeal closure. This suggests that esophageal insufflations are more frequent in nPSV than in nNAVA. The objectives of the present study were to test the hypotheses that: i) gastroesophageal refluxes are increased during nPSV compared to both control condition and nNAVA; ii) esophageal insufflations occur more frequently during nPSV than nNAVA. Polysomnographic recordings and esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance pHmetry were performed in nine chronically instrumented newborn lambs to study gastroesophageal refluxes, esophageal insufflations, states of alertness, laryngeal closure and respiration. Recordings were repeated without sedation in control condition, nPSV (15/4 cmH2O) and nNAVA (~ 15/4 cmH2O). The number of gastroesophageal refluxes recorded over six hours, expressed as median (interquartile range), decreased during both nPSV (1 (0, 3)) and nNAVA [1 (0, 3)] compared to control condition (5 (3, 10)), (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the esophageal insufflation index did not differ between nPSV (40 (11, 61) h-1) and nNAVA (10 (9, 56) h-1) (p = 0.8). In conclusion, nPSV and nNAVA similarly inhibit gastroesophageal refluxes in healthy newborn lambs at pressures that do not lead to gastric distension. In addition, the occurrence of esophageal insufflations is not significantly different between nPSV and nNAVA. The strong inhibitory effect of nIPPV on gastroesophageal refluxes appears identical to that reported with nasal continuous positive airway pressure.
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.