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.
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.
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.
REstricted Versus Liberal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Clinical Trials in Critical Care Medicine.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Pooled it
- Sample size estimation in clinical trials using ventilator-free days as the primary outcome: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Mechanical ventilation in patients with acute brain injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of different levels of PEEP on mortality in ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Journal of critical care · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of Intraoperative Ventilation Strategies on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Optimal Positive End Expiratory Pressure Levels in Ventilated Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Respiratory effects of recruitment maneuvers according to lung recruitability assessed by electrical impedance tomography in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Trial
- Neurological and respiratory effects of lung protective ventilation in acute brain injury patients without lung injury: brain vent, a single centre randomized interventional study.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Decades of intensive care medicine trials: what randomised evidence has changed, corrected, and still questions to resolve.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Effects of PERMISSive lung-protective ventilation on outcome in critically ill, invasively ventilated patients (PERMISS): protocol for a feasibility and safety randomised clinical trial.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Short-Term Physiological Effects of Moderate PEEP Levels in Invasively Ventilated Patients Without Acute or Chronic Lung Disease.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Adaptive minute ventilation during intrahospital transport: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Early time-weighted average PEEP and mortality in sepsis-associated myocardial injury requiring invasive mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study with external validation.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Personalized mechanical ventilation guided by lung ultrasound in patients with ARDS: a pilot phase of a randomized clinical trial.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
- Effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on risk of microaspiration and ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated ICU patients: a prospective study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Efficiency of a Protective Mode of Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Complicated by Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of High Versus Low Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Acute Heart Failure: Rationale and Design of the HELP-AHF Trial.International journal of heart failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.