ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2020
Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2022Article
- Serum complement C1q level is associated with left ventricular hypertrophy induced by coarctation of the aorta: A retrospective observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Observational
- Mechanical ventilation induces lung and brain injury through ATP production, P2Y1 receptor activation and dopamine release.Bioengineered · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMechanical ventilation (MV), compared to spontaneous breathing (SB), has been found to increase abdominal edema and inflammation in experimental sepsis. Our hypothesis was that in primary acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) MV would enhance inflammation and edema in the abdomen.
methodsThirteen piglets were randomized into two groups (SB and MV) after the induction of ARDS by lung lavage and 1 h of injurious ventilation. 1. SB: continuous positive airway pressure 15 cmH MAIN OUTCOMES: abdominal edema, assessed by tissues histopathology and wet-dry weight; abdominal inflammation, assessed by cytokine concentration in tissues, blood and ascites, and tissue histopathology.
resultsThe groups did not show significant differences in hemodynamic or respiratory parameters. Moreover, edema and inflammation in the abdominal organs were similar. However, blood IL6 increased in the MV group in all vascular beds (p < 0.001). In addition, TNFα ratio in blood increased through the lungs in MV group (+ 26% ± 3) but decreased in the SB group (- 17% ± 3).
conclusionsThere were no differences between the MV and SB group for abdominal edema or inflammation. However, the systemic increase in IL6 and the TNFα increase through the lungs suggest that MV, in this model, was harmful to the lungs.
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.