ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Comparison of pressure-regulated volume control ventilation and pressure control ventilation in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of pressure-controlled ventilation targeting end-inspiratory flow rate on pulmonary complications and inflammation levels in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position: a randomized clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- Article
- Effects of pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation on the work of breathing in cats using a cuffed endotracheal tube.Veterinary world · 2021Article
- Successful intraoperative management in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome induced by giant liposarcomas: Two case reports.Medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical ventilation support is commonly required in abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). In the present study, pressure-regulated volume control ventilation (PRVCV) was compared to pressure control ventilation (PCV) in patients with ACS. The prospective study included 40 patients with ACS who were randomized into the PCV or PRVCV groups and subjected to the different modes of ventilation. After 6 h of ventilation, arterial blood gas, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics parameters, as well as the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated. Compared to the PCV mode, mechanical ventilation with PRVCV lead to a significant decrease in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, the peak inspiratory pressure, the mean inspiratory pressure, the central venous pressure, the heart rate and the extravascular lung water index. In addition, a marked improvement in pH, partial pressure of oxygen, oxygenation index and pulmonary static compliance was noted. However, no significant differences in airway resistance, mean arterial pressure, or IAP and SOFA scores were obtained. In conclusion, the PRVCV mode is better than the PCV mode in ventilation patients with ACS, and should therefore be used as a lung protective strategy. The present study was registered at Chictr.org (no. ChiCTR1800016869).
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.