Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30357256›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2018

Effect of a Low vs Intermediate Tidal Volume Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Writing Group for the PReVENT Investigators, Fabienne D Simonis, Ary Serpa Neto, Jan M Binnekade, Annemarije Braber, Karina C M Bruin, Rogier M Determann, Geert-Jan Goekoop, Jeroen Heidt, Janneke Horn and 11 more

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 133 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02153294 nacompletednot on this map

PRotective VENTilation in Patients Without ARDS at Start of Ventilation - PReVENT, a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAcademisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)Ran2014 to 2017Enrolled952ConditionsVentilator-free DaysArmslow tidal volume, high tidal volume
NCT03909854 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Pragmatic Investigation of Volume Targeted Ventilation-1 (PIVOT-1)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2019 to 2020Enrolled139ConditionsRespiratory Failure, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Ventilator LungArmsmode of mechanical ventilation
NCT06203405 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Efficacy of P0.1-guided Sedation Protocol in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSiriraj HospitalRan2023 to 2026Enrolled214ConditionsRespiratory Failure, Critical Illness, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult, Lung InjuryArmsTitrating sedation targeting both optimal P0.1 and appropriate arousal level, Fentanyl, Midazolam, Propofol, Dexmedetomidine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

133 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Writing Group for the PReVENT Investigators
Fabienne D SimonisDepartment of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ary Serpa NetoDepartment of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan M BinnekadeDepartment of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Annemarije BraberDepartment of Intensive Care, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
Karina C M BruinDepartment of Intensive Care, Westfriesgasthuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands.
Rogier M DetermannDepartment of Intensive Care, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Geert-Jan GoekoopDepartment of Intensive Care, Westfriesgasthuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands.
Jeroen HeidtDepartment of Intensive Care Tergooi, Hilversum, the Netherlands.
Janneke HornDepartment of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gerard InnemeeDepartment of Intensive Care Tergooi, Hilversum, the Netherlands.
Evert de JongeDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Nicole P JuffermansDepartment of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter E SpronkDepartment of Intensive Care, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
Lotte M SteutenFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Pieter Roel TuinmanDepartment of Intensive Care & REVIVE Research VUmc Intensive Care, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Rob B P de WildeDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marijn VriendsDepartment of Intensive Care & REVIVE Research VUmc Intensive Care, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marcelo Gama de AbreuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Paolo PelosiDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: It remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Interventions: Invasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax. Results: In total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.

Indexed as

Tidal VolumeAgedCritical IllnessFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory InsufficiencyVentilator-Induced Lung InjuryVentilator Weaning

Identifiers

PMID30357256
PMCPMC6248136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.