ArticlePeerJ2018
Positive end expiratory pressure in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to community acquired pneumonia: do we need a personalized approach?
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05178160 (Lung Ultrasound-Guided PEEP Titration Versus Standard Protocol in Patients With COVID-19 ARDS Treated With CPAP), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Lung Ultrasound-Guided PEEP Titration Versus Standard Protocol in Patients With COVID-19 ARDS Treated With CPAP: a Single Center Prospective Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Lung Recruitability of COVID-19 Pneumonia in Patients Undergoing Helmet CPAP.Archivos de bronconeumologia · 2021Article
- COVID-19 multidisciplinary high dependency unit: the Milan model.Respiratory research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute respiratory failure (ARF) is a life-threatening complication in patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). The use of non-invasive ventilation is controversial. With this prospective, observational study we aimed to describe a protocol to assess whether a patient with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic ARF secondary to CAP benefits, in clinical and laboratoristic terms, from the application of a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) + oxygen vs oxygen alone.
methodsPatients who benefit from PEEP application (PEEP-responders) were defined as those with partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) increase >20% and/or reduction of respiratory distress during PEEP + oxygen therapy compared to oxygen therapy alone. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between PEEP-responders and PEEP-non responders.
resultsOut of 41 patients, 27 (66%) benefit from PEEP application (PEEP-responders), the best response was obtained with a PEEP of 10 cmH2O in 13 patients, 7.5 cmH2O in eight and 5 cmH2O in six. PEEP-responders were less likely to present comorbidities compared to PEEP-non responders. No differences between groups were found in regards to endotracheal intubation criteria fullfillment, intensive care unit admission and in-hospital mortality, while PEEP-responders had a shorter length of hospital stay. DISCUSSION: The application of a protocol to evaluate PEEP responsiveness might be useful in patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic ARF due to CAP in order to personalize and maximize the effectiveness of therapy, and prevent the inappropriate PEEP use. PEEP responsiveness does not seem to be associated with better outcomes, with the exception of a shorter length of hospital stay.
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.