ArticleChinese medical journal2019
Critical hemodynamic therapy oriented resuscitation helping reduce lung water production and improve survival.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [A case of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by inhalation injury].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2023Article
- Physiological Regulation of Pulmonary Microcirculation under Mechanical Ventilation at Different Cardiac Outputs and Positive End-Expiratory Pressures in a Porcine Model.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- ISCCM Guidelines for Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critically Ill.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Safety and efficacy of pulse-induced contour cardiac output monitoring in elderly patients with coronary artery disease and severe heart failure at coronary care units.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Hemodynamic Characteristics of Patients with Myocardial Injury and Cardiogenic Shock Caused by Severe COVID-19-Related Pneumonia.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreased extravascular lung water (EVLW) in shock is common in the critically ill patients. This study aimed to explore the effect of cardiac output (CO) on EVLW and its relevant influence on prognosis.
methodsThe hemodynamic data of 428 patients with pulse-indicated continuous CO catheterization from Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The patients were assigned to acute respiratory distress syndrome group, cardiogenic shock group, septic shock group, and combined shock (cardiogenic and septic) group according to their symptoms. Information on 28-day mortality and renal function was also collected.
resultsThe CO and EVLW index (EVLWI) in the cardiogenic and combined shock groups were lower than those in the other groups (acute respiratory distress syndrome group vs. cardiogenic shock group vs. septic shock group vs. combined shock group: CO, 5.1 [4.0, 6.2] vs. 4.7 [4.0, 5.7] vs. 5.5 [4.3, 6.7] vs. 4.6 [3.5, 5.7] at 0 to 24 h, P = 0.009; 4.6 [3.8, 5.6] vs. 4.8 [4.1, 5.7] vs. 5.3 [4.4, 6.5] vs. 4.5 [3.8, 5.3] at 24 to 48 h, P = 0.048; 4.5 [4.1, 5.4] vs. 4.8 [3.8, 5.5] vs. 5.3 [4.0, 6.4] vs. 4.0 [3.2, 5.4] at 48 to 72 h, P = 0.006; EVLWI, 11.4 [8.7, 19.1] vs. 7.9 [6.6, 10.0] vs. 8.8 [7.4, 11.0] vs. 8.2 [6.7, 11.3] at 0 to 24 h, P < 0.001; 11.8 [7.7, 17.2] vs. 7.8 [6.3, 10.2] vs. 8.7 [6.6, 12.2] vs. 8.0 [6.6, 11.1] at 24 to 48 h, P < 0.001; and 11.3 [7.7, 18.7] vs. 7.5 [6.3, 10.0] vs. 8.8 [6.3, 12.2] vs. 8.4 [6.4, 11.2] at 48 to 72 h, P < 0.001. The trend of the EVLWI in the septic shock group was higher than that in the cardiogenic shock group (P < 0.05). Moreover, there existed some difference in the pulmonary vascular permeability index among the cardiogenic shock group, the septic shock group, and the combined shock group, without statistical significance (P > 0.05). In addition, there was no significant difference in tissue perfusion or renal function among the four groups during the observation period (P > 0.05). However, the cardiogenic shock group had a higher 28-day survival rate than the other three groups [log rank (Mantel-Cox) = 31.169, P < 0.001].
conclusionTissue-aimed lower CO could reduce the EVLWI and achieve a better prognosis.
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.