ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2018
Appraisal of systemic inflammation and diagnostic markers in a porcine model of VAP: secondary analysis from a study on novel preventive strategies.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Effects of Appropriate Empirical Antimicrobial Treatment with Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in a Swine Model of Nosocomial Pneumonia.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
- The Role of Dysbiosis in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Exhaled breath condensate biomarkers in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients.Journal of breath research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously evaluated the efficacy of a ventilatory strategy to achieve expiratory flow bias and positive end-expiratory pressure (EFB + PEEP) or the Trendelenburg position (TP) for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). These preventive measures were aimed at improving mucus clearance and reducing pulmonary aspiration of bacteria-laden oropharyngeal secretions. This secondary analysis is aimed at evaluating the effects of aforementioned interventions on systemic inflammation and to substantiate the value of clinical parameters and cytokines in the diagnosis of VAP.
methodsTwenty female pigs were randomized to be positioned in the semirecumbent/prone position, and ventilated with duty cycle 0.33 and without PEEP (control); positioned as in the control group, PEEP 5 cmH
resultsIn the control, EFB + PEEP, and Trendelenburg groups, lung tissue Pseudomonas aeruginosa concentration was 2.4 ± 1.5, 1.9 ± 2.1, and 0.3 ± 0.6 log cfu/mL, respectively (p = 0.020). Whereas, it was 2.4 ± 1.9 and 0.6 ± 0.9 log cfu/mL in animals with or without VAP (p < 0.001). Lower levels of interleukin (IL)-1β (p = 0.021), IL-1RA (p < 0.001), IL-4 (p = 0.005), IL-8 (p = 0.008), and IL-18 (p = 0.050) were found in Trendelenburg animals. VAP increased IL-10 (p = 0.035), tumor necrosis factor-α (p = 0.041), and endotracheal aspirate (ETA) P. aeruginosa concentration (p = 0.024). A model comprising ETA bacterial burden, IL-10, and TNF-α yielded moderate discrimination for the diagnosis of VAP (area of the receiver operating curve 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.00).
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects associated with the Trendelenburg position. In this reliable model of VAP, ETA culture showed good diagnostic accuracy, whereas systemic IL-10 and TNF-α marginally improved accuracy. Further clinical studies will be necessary to confirm clinical value of the Trendelenburg position as a measure to hinder inflammation during mechanical ventilation and significance of systemic IL-10 and TNF-α in the diagnosis of VAP.
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.