ArticleJournal of intensive care2018
"Low-" versus "high"-frequency oscillation and right ventricular function in ARDS. A randomized crossover study.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02027129 (Comparison of Cardio-respiratory Variables Between Low-frequency High Frequency Oscillation With/Without Tracheal Gas Insufflation and High-frequency High-frequency Oscillation in Severe ARDS.), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Cardio-respiratory Variables Between Low-frequency High Frequency Oscillation With/Without Tracheal Gas Insufflation and High-frequency High-frequency Oscillation in Severe ARDS.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating Heart-Lung Interactions in Mechanical Ventilation: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Advanced Management Strategies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Beyond.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Right ventricle-specific therapies in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a scoping review.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent, large trials of high-frequency oscillation (HFO) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) reported negative results. This could be explained by an HFO-induced right ventricular (RV) dysfunction/failure due to high intrathoracic pressures and hypercapnia. We hypothesized that HFO strategies aimed at averting/attenuating hypercapnia, such as "low-frequency" (i.e., 4 Hz) HFO and 4-Hz HFO with tracheal-gas insufflation (HFO-TGI), may result in an improved RV function relative to "high-frequency" (i.e., 7 Hz) HFO (which may promote hypercapnia) and similar RV function relative to lung protective CV.
methodsWe studied 17 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS [PaO
resultsThe mean "study HFO mPaw" was 8-10 cmH
conclusionsIn moderate-to-severe ARDS, "short-term" 4-Hz HFO strategies resulted in better RV function versus 7-Hz HFO, partly attributable to improved PaCO
trial registrationThis study was registered 40 days prior to the enrollment of the first patient at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID no. NCT02027129, Principal Investigator Spyros D. Mentzelopoulos, date of registration January 3, 2014.
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.