ReviewRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
Does the use of high PEEP levels prevent ventilator-induced lung injury?
Review in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05702411 (Air Stacking Technique For Pulmonary Reexpansion In The Ventilator After Expiratory Pause During Aspiration In Closed System), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Air Stacking Technique For Pulmonary Reexpansion In The Ventilator After Expiratory Pause During Aspiration In Closed System
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Physiological Effects of Moderate PEEP Levels in Invasively Ventilated Patients Without Acute or Chronic Lung Disease.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Distribution and Magnitude of Regional Volumetric Lung Strain and Its Modification by PEEP in Healthy Anesthetized and Mechanically Ventilated Dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Static Stretch Increases the Pro-Inflammatory Response of Rat Type 2 Alveolar Epithelial Cells to Dynamic Stretch.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on lung injury and haemodynamics during experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and near-apnoeic ventilation.British journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Overdistention and intratidal alveolar recruitment have been advocated as the main physical mechanisms responsible for ventilator-induced lung injury. Limiting tidal volume has a demonstrated survival benefit in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and is recognized as the cornerstone of protective ventilation. In contrast, the use of high positive end-expiratory pressure levels in clinical trials has yielded conflicting results and remains controversial. In the present review, we will discuss the benefits and limitations of the open lung approach and will discuss some recent experimental and clinical trials on the use of high versus low/moderate positive end-expiratory pressure levels. We will also distinguish dynamic (tidal volume) from static strain (positive end-expiratory pressure and mean airway pressure) and will discuss their roles in inducing ventilator-induced lung injury. High positive end-expiratory pressure strategies clearly decrease refractory hypoxemia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but they also increase static strain, which in turn may harm patients, especially those with lower levels of lung recruitability. In patients with severe respiratory failure, titrating positive end-expiratory pressure against the severity of hypoxemia, or providing it in a decremental fashion after a recruitment maneuver, is recommended. If high plateau, driving or mean airway pressures are observed, prone positioning or ultraprotective ventilation may be indicated to improve oxygenation without additional stress and strain in the lung.
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.