Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33295981›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2020

Effect of a Lower vs Higher Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in ICU Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Writing Committee and Steering Committee for the RELAx Collaborative Group, Anna Geke Algera, Luigi Pisani, Ary Serpa Neto, Sylvia S den Boer, Frank F H Bosch, Karina Bruin, Pauline M Klooster, Nardo J M Van der Meer, Ralph O Nowitzky and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03167580 (REstricted Versus Liberal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03167580 nacompletednot on this map

REstricted Versus Liberal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorAcademisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)Ran2017 to 2020Enrolled980ConditionsVentilator-free DaysArmsrestricted PEEP, liberal PEEP
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. What if the Intensive Care Unit Abandoned the Physiology Myth-The Case of "Physiological PEEP".Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Writing Committee and Steering Committee for the RELAx Collaborative Group
Anna Geke AlgeraDepartment of Intensive Care and Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Luigi PisaniDepartment of Intensive Care and Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ary Serpa NetoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sylvia S den BoerDepartment of Intensive Care, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands.
Frank F H BoschDepartment of Intensive Care, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Karina BruinDepartment of Intensive Care, Westfriesgasthuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands.
Pauline M KloosterDepartment of Intensive Care, Haaglanden MC, the Hague, the Netherlands.
Nardo J M Van der MeerDepartment of Intensive Care, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands.
Ralph O NowitzkyDepartment of Intensive Care, Haga Hospital, the Hague, the Netherlands.
Ilse M PurmerDepartment of Intensive Care, Haga Hospital, the Hague, the Netherlands.
Mathilde SlabbekoornDepartment of Intensive Care, Haaglanden MC, the Hague, the Netherlands.
Peter E SpronkDepartment of Intensive Care, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
Jan van VlietDepartment of Intensive Care, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Jan J WeeninkDepartment of Intensive Care, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands.
Marcelo Gama de AbreuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Paolo PelosiDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Intensive Care and Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Frederique PaulusDepartment of Intensive Care and Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: It is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation. Results: Among 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.

Indexed as

AgedAPACHECritical IllnessFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsKaplan-Meier EstimateLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOxygenPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedPneumothoraxPositive-Pressure RespirationRespiratory InsufficiencyVentilator WeaningOxygen

Identifiers

PMID33295981
PMCPMC7726701

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.