ArticlePhysiological research2022
Effects of mechanical ventilation versus apnea on bi-ventricular pressure-volume loop recording.
Article in Physiological research, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Right Ventricular Pressure-Volume Loop Analysis in Large Animal Research: A Scoping Review of Current Practices Using Conductance and Admittance Catheters.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Review
- Navigating Heart-Lung Interactions in Mechanical Ventilation: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Advanced Management Strategies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Beyond.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of sternotomy and pericardiotomy on cardiopulmonary haemodynamics in a large animal model.Experimental physiology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiration changes intrathoracic pressure and lung volumes in a cyclic manner, which affect cardiac function. Invasive ventricular pressure-volume (PV) loops can be recorded during ongoing mechanical ventilation or in transient apnea. No consensus exists considering ventilatory mode during PV loop recording. The objective of this study was to investigate the magnitude of any systematic difference of bi-ventricular PV loop variables recorded during mechanical ventilation versus apnea. PV loops were recorded simultaneously from the right ventricle and left ventricle in a closed chest porcine model during mechanical ventilation and in transient apnea (n=72). Variables were compared by regression analyses. Mechanical ventilation versus apnea affected regression coefficients for important PV variables including right ventricular stroke volume (1.22, 95% CI [1.08-1.36], p=0.003), right ventricular ejection fraction (0.90, 95% CI [0.81-1.00], p=0.043) and right ventricular arterial elastance (0.61, 95%CI [0.55-0.68], p<0.0001). Right ventricular pressures and volumes were parallelly shifted with Y-intercepts different from 0. Few left ventricular variables were affected, mainly first derivatives of pressure (dP/dt(max): 0.96, 95% CI [0.92-0.99], p=0.016, and dP/dt(min): 0.92, 95% CI [0.86-0.99], p=0.026), which might be due to decreased heart rate in apnea (Y-intercept -6.88, 95% CI [-12.22; -1.54], p=0.012). We conclude, that right ventricular stroke volume, ejection fraction and arterial elastance were mostly affected by apnea compared to mechanical ventilation. The results motivate future standardization of respiratory modality when measuring PV relationships.
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.