ReviewDer Anaesthesist2019
Ventilator autotriggering : An underestimated phenomenon in the determination of brain death.
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective Evaluation of a Modified Apnea Test in Brain Death Candidates that Does Not Require Disconnection from the Ventilator.Neurocritical care · 2024Observational
- Cardiac Oscillations Complicating Brain Death Diagnosis.Case reports in critical care · 2023Article
- Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) in Selected Scenarios with Risk of Possible False-Positive or False-Negative Conclusions in Diagnosing Brain Death.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentilator autotriggering (VAT) may induce uncertainty in diagnosing brain death because it may falsely suggest a central respiratory drive in brain-dead patients where no intrinsic respiratory efforts exist. Since the lack of international standardization of brain death criteria contributes to the loss of potential donor organs, it is important to be aware of this phenomenon, which is a not well-known confounder in the process of diagnosing brain death.
methodsThe national official recommendations or guidelines for the determination of brain death and organ transplantation of 15 selected European countries (including all 8 member states of the Eurotransplant network) were evaluated with respect to VAT. In addition, a literature search (PubMed, Google Scholar) using the term "ventilator autotriggering", synonyms or similar content-related wording was carried out.
resultsThe VAT phenomenon was mentioned in 3 of the 15 official recommendations and guidelines on diagnosing brain death. The causes and management of VAT are presented in different ways in the reviewed official recommendations and guidelines.
conclusionThe phenomenon of VAT is inconsistently addressed in the national guidelines and recommendations for the determination of brain death and should, therefore, be included in future harmonized brain death codes. Detection and correction of VAT should be implemented as early as possible by a structured procedure. Additional training and information on this phenomenon should be made available to the entire intensive care unit staff.
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.