Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33354673›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2020

Atelectrauma Versus Volutrauma: A Tale of Two Time-Constants.

Jason H T Bates, Donald P Gaver, Nader M Habashi, Gary F Nieman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jason H T BatesDepartment of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Donald P GaverDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Nader M HabashiR Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Gary F NiemanDepartment of Surgery, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · USTulane University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Preserving Epithelial Barrier Integrity in Ventilator-Induced Lung InjuryR01HL142702 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI Jason HT Bates, DONALD P. GAVER · 2018 to 2026
$4.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL142702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesElucidate how the degree of ventilator-induced lung injury due to atelectrauma that is produced in the injured lung during mechanical ventilation is determined by both the timing and magnitude of the airway pressure profile.

designA computational model of the injured lung provides a platform for exploring how mechanical ventilation parameters potentially modulate atelectrauma and volutrauma. This model incorporates the time dependence of lung recruitment and derecruitment, and the time-constant of lung emptying during expiration as determined by overall compliance and resistance of the respiratory system.

settingComputational model. SUBJECTS: Simulated scenarios representing patients with both normal and acutely injured lungs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsProtective low-tidal volume ventilation (Low-Vt) of the simulated injured lung avoided atelectrauma through the elevation of positive end-expiratory pressure while maintaining fixed tidal volume and driving pressure. In contrast, airway pressure release ventilation avoided atelectrauma by incorporating a very brief expiratory duration () that both prevents enough time for derecruitment and limits the minimum alveolar pressure prior to inspiration. Model simulations demonstrated that has an effective threshold value below which airway pressure release ventilation is safe from atelectrauma while maintaining a tidal volume and driving pressure comparable with those of Low-Vt. This threshold is strongly influenced by the time-constant of lung-emptying.

conclusionsLow-Vt and airway pressure release ventilation represent markedly different strategies for the avoidance of ventilator-induced lung injury, primarily involving the manipulation of positive end-expiratory pressure and , respectively. can be based on exhalation flow values, which may provide a patient-specific approach to protective ventilation.

Indexed as

acute respiratory distress syndromecomputational modellung elastancemechanical ventilationrecruitment and derecruitmentventilator-induced lung injuryvolutrauma

Identifiers

PMID33354673
PMCPMC7746208
OpenAlexW3114418992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.