ArticlePeerJ2020
Bi-Level ventilation decreases pulmonary shunt and modulates neuroinflammation in a cardiopulmonary resuscitation model.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of different airway pressures in (synchronized) ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pigs.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Airway management and ventilation techniques in resuscitation during advanced life support: an update.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
- Oxygenation and ventilation during prolonged experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation with either continuous or 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratios together with 10 cmHIntensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
- Article
- High PEEP Levels during CPR Improve Ventilation without Deleterious Haemodynamic Effects in Pigs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal ventilation strategies during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are still heavily debated and poorly understood. So far, no convincing evidence could be presented in favour of outcome relevance and necessity of specific ventilation patterns. In recent years, alternative models to the guideline-based intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) have been proposed. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated a bi-level ventilation approach in a porcine model to assess possible physiological advantages for the pulmonary system as well as resulting changes in neuroinflammation compared to standard measures.
methodsSixteen male German landrace pigs were anesthetized and instrumented with arterial and venous catheters. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and the animals were left untreated and without ventilation for 4 minutes. After randomization, the animals were assigned to either the guideline-based group (IPPV, tidal volume 8-10 ml/kg, respiratory rate 10/min, F
resultsFive of the IPPV and four of the bi-level animals achieved ROSC. While there were no significant differences in gas exchange or hemodynamic values, bi-level treated animals showed less pulmonary shunt directly after ROSC and a tendency to lower inspiratory pressures during CPR. Additionally, cytokine expression of tumour necrosis factor alpha was significantly reduced in hippocampal tissue compared to IPPV animals.
conclusionBi-level ventilation with a constant positive end expiratory pressure and pressure-controlled ventilation is not inferior in terms of oxygenation and decarboxylation when compared to guideline-based IPPV ventilation. Additionally, bi-level ventilation showed signs for a potentially ameliorated neurological outcome as well as less pulmonary shunt following experimental resuscitation. Given the restrictions of the animal model, these advantages should be further examined.
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.