ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2019
Expiratory flow-limitation in mechanically ventilated patients: A risk for ventilator-induced lung injury?
Article in World journal of critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative mechanical ventilation management in COPD: A state of the art review.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Observation on the application effect of chest physical therapy based on lung ultrasound signs in the respiratory management of mechanically ventilated patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Airway epithelium damage in acute respiratory distress syndrome.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Respiratory Mechanics.Anesthesiology clinics · 2021Review
- The impact of fluid status and decremental PEEP strategy on cardiac function and lung and kidney damage in mild-moderate experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome.Respiratory research · 2021Article
- Non-interventional monitoring of expiratory flow limitation during experimental mechanical ventilation.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Expiratory flow limitation in intensive care: prevalence and risk factors.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expiratory flow limitation (EFL), that is the inability of expiratory flow to increase in spite of an increase of the driving pressure, is a common and unrecognized occurrence during mechanical ventilation in a variety of intensive care unit conditions. Recent evidence suggests that the presence of EFL is associated with an increase in mortality, at least in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, and in pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery. EFL is a major cause of intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPi), which in ARDS patients is heterogeneously distributed, with a consequent increase of ventilation/perfusion mismatch and reduction of arterial oxygenation. Airway collapse is frequently concomitant to the presence of EFL. When airways close and reopen during tidal ventilation, abnormally high stresses are generated that can damage the bronchiolar epithelium and uncouple small airways from the alveolar septa, possibly generating the small airways abnormalities detected at autopsy in ARDS. Finally, the high stresses and airway distortion generated downstream the choke points may contribute to parenchymal injury, but this possibility is still unproven. PEEP application can abolish EFL, decrease PEEPi heterogeneity, and limit recruitment/derecruitment. Whether increasing PEEP up to EFL disappearance is a useful criterion for PEEP titration can only be determined by future studies.
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.