Trial reportPloS one2020
Lung-protective properties of expiratory flow-initiated pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation: A randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation for laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- Changes in dead space components during pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation: A secondary analysis of a randomized trial.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpiratory flow-initiated pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation (EF-initiated PC-IRV) reduces physiological dead space. We hypothesised that EF-initiated PC-IRV would be lung protective compared with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV).
methodsTwenty-eight men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were enrolled in this randomised controlled trial. The EF-initiated PC-IRV group (n = 14) used pressure-controlled ventilation with the volume guaranteed mode. The inspiratory to expiratory (I:E) ratio was individually adjusted by observing the expiratory flow-time wave. The VCV group (n = 14) used the volume control mode with a 1:2 I:E ratio. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in the serum cytokine levels.
resultsThere were no significant differences in serum IL-6 between the EF-initiated PC-IRV (median 34 pg ml-1 (IQR 20.5 to 63.5)) and VCV (31 pg ml-1 (24.5 to 59)) groups (P = 0.84). The physiological dead space rate (physiological dead space/expired tidal volume) was significantly reduced in the EF-initiated PC-IRV group as compared with that in the VCV group (0.31 ± 0.06 vs 0.4 ± 0.07; P<0.001). The physiological dead space rate was negatively correlated with the forced vital capacity (% predicted) in the VCV group (r = -0.85, P<0.001), but not in the EF-initiated PC-IRV group (r = 0.15, P = 0.62). Two patients in the VCV group had permissive hypercapnia with low forced vital capacity (% predicted).
conclusionsThere were no differences in the lung-protective properties between the two ventilatory strategies. However, EF-initiated PC-IRV reduced physiological dead space rate; thus, it may be useful for reducing the ventilatory volume that is necessary to maintain normocapnia in patients with low forced vital capacity (% predicted) during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
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.