ArticleAmerican journal of blood research2020
Comparison of efficacy between sequential ventilation and conventional invasive mechanical ventilation in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension complicated with respiratory failure.
Article in American journal of blood research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sequential treatment of severe pneumonia with respiratory failure and its influence on respiratory mechanical parameters and hemodynamics.World journal of clinical cases · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePulmonary hypertension (PAH) is a serious progressive and fatal pulmonary disease characterized by elevated pulmonary artery pressure. Mechanical sequential ventilation has been gradually applied in the treatment of patients with PAH complicated with RF, which can effectively reduce the incidence of VAP and better promote the recovery of respiratory function. This study is aimed to determine the efficacy of sequential ventilation and conventional invasive mechanical ventilation in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PAH) complicated with respiratory failure (RF).
methodsA total of 198 patients with both PAH and RF admitted to our hospital were enrolled. Among them, 102 patients were treated with sequential ventilation as a study group (stu group), and 96 patients were treated with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation as a control group (con group). Then the two groups were compared in efficacy and related indexes before and after treatment.
resultsThe stu group experienced significantly shorter invasive ventilation time, total mechanical ventilation time, and hospitalization time than the con group (all P<0.05), and showed a significantly lower complication rate than the con group (P<0.05). The reintubation rate, weaning failure rate, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate of the stu group were all significantly lower than those of the con group (all P<0.05), and the stu group showed significantly higher pondus hydrogenii (pH) and arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO
conclusionCompared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation, sequential ventilation can effectively minimize the treatment time of patients with PAH complicated with RF, reduce the incidences of adverse events and complications in them, and significantly improve the blood gas analysis indexes and BNP in them, so it is worthy of clinical promotion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33224567PMC7675131W3107622498What 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.