ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020
Event-triggered averaging of electrical impedance tomography (EIT) respiratory waveforms as compared to low-pass filtering for removal of cardiac related impedance changes.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. 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.
- Electrical impedance tomography monitoring in adult ICU patients: state-of-the-art, recommendations for standardized acquisition, processing, and clinical use, and future directions.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- What is new in respiratory monitoring?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Review
- Bedside Selection of Positive End Expiratory Pressure by Electrical Impedance Tomography in Patients Undergoing Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: A Comparison between COVID-19 ARDS and ARDS from Other Etiologies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Occurrence of pendelluft under pressure support ventilation in patients who failed a spontaneous breathing trial: an observational study.Annals of intensive care · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is used for bedside ventilation monitoring; cardiac related impedance changes represent a source of noise superimposed on the ventilation signal, commonly removed by low-pass filtering (LPF). We investigated if an alternative approach, based on an event-triggered averaging (ETA) process, is more effective at preserving the actual ventilation waveform. Ten paralyzed patients undergoing volume-controlled ventilation were studied; 30 breaths for each patient were identified to compare LPF and ETA. For ETA the identified breaths were temporally aligned on the beginning of inspiration; the values of the thirty curves at each time point were averaged. The analysis was conducted on the global EIT signal and on four ventral-to-dorsal regions of interest. Global tidal variations by ETA resulted higher than LPF (average difference 139 ± 88 arbitrary units, p = 0.004). Both for global and regional waveforms, minimum and maximum EIT slopes were steeper by ETA as compared to LPF (average difference respectively - 57 ± 60 mL/s and 144 ± 96 mL/s for global signal, p < 0.05); ventilator inspiratory peak airflow correlated with maximum slope measured by ETA (r = 0.902, p < 0.001), but not LPF (p = 0.319). Beginning of inspiration identified on the ventilator waveform and on the global EIT signal by ETA occurred simultaneously, (+ 0.04 ± 0.07 s, p = 0.081), while occurred earlier by LPF (- 0.26 ± 0.1 s, p < 0.001). Removal of cardiac related impedance changes by ETA results in a ventilation signal more similar to the waveforms recorded by the ventilator, particularly regarding the slope of impedance changes and time at the minimum values as compared to LPF.
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.