Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30949778›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2019

Airway pressure release ventilation during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Andrea Carsetti, Elisa Damiani, Roberta Domizi, Claudia Scorcella, Simona Pantanetti, Stefano Falcetta, Abele Donati, Erica Adrario

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The future of acute and emergency care.Future healthcare journal · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea CarsettiAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy. andrea.carsetti@ospedaliriuniti.marche.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6096-6251
Elisa DamianiAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Roberta DomiziAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy.
Claudia ScorcellaAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy.
Simona PantanettiAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy.
Stefano FalcettaAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy.
Abele DonatiAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Erica AdrarioAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti · ITMarche Polytechnic University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAirway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been considered a tempting mode of ventilation during acute respiratory failure within the concept of open lung ventilation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify whether adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure have a higher number of ventilator-free days at day 28 when ventilated in APRV compared to conventional ventilation strategy. Secondary outcomes were difference in PaO

resultsWe considered five RCTs for the analysis enrolling a total of 330 patients. For ventilatory-free day at day 28, the overall mean difference (MD) between APRV and conventional ventilation was 6.04 days (95%CI 2.12, 9.96, p = 0.003; I

conclusionThis study showed a higher number of ventilator-free days at 28 day and a lower hospital mortality in acute hypoxemic patients treated with APRV than conventional ventilation, without any negative hemodynamic impact or higher risk of barotrauma. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution because of the low-quality evidence supporting them and the moderate heterogeneity found. Other well-designed RCTs need to be conducted to confirm our findings.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory distress syndromeAcute respiratory failureAirway pressure release ventilationMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID30949778
PMCPMC6449410
OpenAlexW2939134453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.