Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34255207›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2021

High risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19 with frequently encountered spontaneous breathing patterns: a computational modelling study.

Liam Weaver, Anup Das, Sina Saffaran, Nadir Yehya, Timothy E Scott, Marc Chikhani, John G Laffey, Jonathan G Hardman, Luigi Camporota, Declan G Bates

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Digital twins for chronic lung diseases.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Liam Weaver *School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Anup Das *School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Sina Saffaran *Faculty of Engineering Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Nadir YehyaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Timothy E ScottAcademic Department of Military Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, ICT Centre, Birmingham, B15 2SQ, UK.
Marc ChikhaniNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
John G LaffeyAnaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Jonathan G HardmanAnaesthesia & Critical Care, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Luigi CamporotaDepartment of Critical Care, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. luigi.camporota@gstt.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5600-1676
Declan G BatesSchool of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. d.bates@warwick.ac.uk.
University of Warwick · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/P023444/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/V014455/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is on-going controversy regarding the potential for increased respiratory effort to generate patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, direct clinical evidence linking increased inspiratory effort to lung injury is scarce. We adapted a computational simulator of cardiopulmonary pathophysiology to quantify the mechanical forces that could lead to P-SILI at different levels of respiratory effort. In accordance with recent data, the simulator parameters were manually adjusted to generate a population of 10 patients that recapitulate clinical features exhibited by certain COVID-19 patients, i.e., severe hypoxaemia combined with relatively well-preserved lung mechanics, being treated with supplemental oxygen.

resultsSimulations were conducted at tidal volumes (VT) and respiratory rates (RR) of 7 ml/kg and 14 breaths/min (representing normal respiratory effort) and at VT/RR of 7/20, 7/30, 10/14, 10/20 and 10/30 ml/kg / breaths/min. While oxygenation improved with higher respiratory efforts, significant increases in multiple indicators of the potential for lung injury were observed at all higher VT/RR combinations tested. Pleural pressure swing increased from 12.0 ± 0.3 cmH

conclusionsOur results suggest that the forces generated by increased inspiratory effort commonly seen in COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure are comparable with those that have been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury during mechanical ventilation. Respiratory efforts in these patients should be carefully monitored and controlled to minimise the risk of lung injury.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory failureComputational modellingCOVID-19HypoxaemiaPatient self-inflicted lung injury

Identifiers

PMID34255207
PMCPMC8276227
OpenAlexW3178592321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.