Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31157366›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2019

Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Writing Committee for the PROBESE Collaborative Group of the PROtective VEntilation Network (PROVEnet) for the Clinical Trial Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology, Thomas Bluth, Ary Serpa Neto, Marcus J Schultz, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, PROBESE Collaborative Group, T Bluth, I Bobek, J C Canet and 26 more

Erratum issued 5 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 163 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
33.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02148692 nacompletednot on this map

Protective Ventilation With Higher Versus Lower PEEP During General Anesthesia for Surgery in Obese Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorTechnische Universität DresdenRan2014 to 2018Enrolled2,013ConditionsMorbid Obesity, Surgery, General AnesthesiaArmsHigher PEEP, Lower PEEP
NCT04108130 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

An Anesthesia-Centered Bundle to Reduce Postoperative Pulmonary Complications: The PRIME-AIR Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2020 to 2023Enrolled794ConditionsPostoperative Pulmonary ComplicationsArmsPreoperative Education, Intraoperative PEEP (Positive End-Expiratory Pressure) Individualization, Individualization of Neuromuscular Blockade, Postoperative Incentive Spirometry, Postoperative Ambulation
NCT05550181 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Associations of Intraoperative Hypocapnia With Patient Demographics, Ventilation Characteristics and Outcomes--Statistical Analysis Plan for an Individual Patient Data Analysis of PROVHILO and PROBESE

TypeobservationalSponsorNMC Specialty HospitalRan2022 to 2023Enrolled2,793ConditionsMechanical Ventilation Complication, Surgery, Pulmonary Complication, Intraoperative ComplicationsArmsintraoperative mechanical ventilation with hypocapnia (etCO2 < 35 mm Hg)
NCT06123039 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Use of Heart-lung Interaction Parameters to Predict Haemodynamic Tolerance to the Open Lung Approach With Individualised PEEP During Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in the Operating Room

TypeobservationalSponsorHospital Universitario La FeRan2023 to 2025Enrolled72ConditionsAnesthesia, Perioperative/Postoperative Complications, Hypovolemia, Haemodynamic InstabilityArmsTidal Volume Challenge, Recruitment maneuver obtaining individualised PEEP
NCT07211074 completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Optimal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) Level for Minimizing the Risk of Postoperative Atelectasis According to Lung Ultrasound Monitoring: A Retrospective Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorState Budgetary Healthcare Institution, National Medical Surgical Center N.A. N.I. Pirogov, Ministry of Health of RussiaRan2025 to 2026Enrolled450ConditionsPostoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPCs), Postoperative Atelectasis, Lung Ultrasound
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 367 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

36 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Writing Committee for the PROBESE Collaborative Group of the PROtective VEntilation Network (PROVEnet) for the Clinical Trial Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology
Thomas BluthDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
Ary Serpa NetoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Intensive Care, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Paolo PelosiDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Marcelo Gama de AbreuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
PROBESE Collaborative Group
T Bluth
I Bobek
J C Canet
G Cinnella
L de Baerdemaeker
M Gama de Abreu
C Gregoretti
G Hedenstierna
S N T Hemmes
M Hiesmayr
M W Hollmann
S Jaber
J Laffey
M J Licker
K Markstaller
I Matot
G H Mills
J P Mulier
P Pelosi
C Putensen
R Rossaint
J Schmitt
M J Schultz
M Senturk
A Serpa Neto
P Severgnini
J Sprung
M F Vidal Melo
H Wrigge
TU Dresden · DEHospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with Spo2 ≤92% for >1 minute). Results: Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P = .23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6% [95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148692.

Indexed as

Intraoperative CareAdultAnesthesia, GeneralBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansLung DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedObesityPleural DiseasesPositive-Pressure RespirationPostoperative ComplicationsPulmonary AtelectasisRespiratory InsufficiencySurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID31157366
PMCPMC6582260
OpenAlexW2948946434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.