ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Pleth variability index and respiratory system compliance to direct PEEP settings in mechanically ventilated patients, an exploratory study.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. 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, 0 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze the ability of pleth variability index (PVI) and respiratory system compliance (RSC) on evaluating the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), then to direct PEEP settings in mechanically ventilated critical patients.
methodsWe studied 22 mechanically ventilated critical patients in the intensive care unit. Patients were monitored with classical monitor and a pulse co-oximeter, with pulse sensors attached to patients' index fingers. Hemodynamic data [heart rate (HR), perfusion index (PI), PVI, central venous pressure (CVP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SPO2), peripheral blood oxygen content (SPOC) and peripheral blood hemoglobin (SPHB)] as well as the respiratory data [respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (VT), RSC and controlled airway pressure] were recorded for 15 min each at 3 different levels of PEEP (0, 5 and 10 cmH2O).
resultsDifferent levels of PEEP (0, 5 and 10 cmH2O) had no obvious effect on RR, HR, MAP, SPO2 and SPOC. However, 10 cmH2O PEEP induced significant hemodynamic disturbances, including decreases of PI, and increases of both PVI and CVP. Meanwhile, 5 cmH2O PEEP induced no significant changes on hemodynamics such as CVP, PI and PVI, but improved the RSC.
conclusionsRSC and PVI may be useful in detecting the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of PEEP, thus may help clinicians individualize PEEP settings in mechanically ventilated patients.
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.