ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2017
Effects of regional perfusion block in healthy and injured lungs.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhaled COFrontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Addition of 5% COAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Inhaled COAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- What does the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial (ART) teach us?-it is time for precision medicine and precision trials in critical care!Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere hypoperfusion can cause lung damage. We studied the effects of regional perfusion block in normal lungs and in the lungs that had been conditioned by lavage with 500 ml saline and high V
methodsNineteen pigs (61.2 ± 2.5 kg) were randomized to five groups: controls (n = 3), the right lower lobe block alone (n = 3), lavage and high V
resultsPerfusion block did not damage healthy lungs. In conditioned lungs, the left perfusion block caused more edema in the contralateral lung (777 ± 62 g right lung vs 484 ± 204 g left; p < 0.05) than the right perfusion block did (581 ± 103 g right lung vs 484 ± 204 g left; p n.s.). The gas/tissue ratio, however, was similar (0.5 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.5; p n.s.). The lobes with perfusion block were not affected (gas/tissue ratio right 1.6 ± 0.9; left 1.7 ± 0.5, respectively). Pulmonary artery pressure, PaO
conclusionsThe right and left perfusion blocks caused the same "intensity" of edema in conditioned lungs. The total amount of edema in the two lungs differed because of differences in lung size. If capillary permeability is altered, increased blood flow may induce or increase edema.
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.