Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35329965›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Bedside Selection of Positive End Expiratory Pressure by Electrical Impedance Tomography in Patients Undergoing Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: A Comparison between COVID-19 ARDS and ARDS from Other Etiologies.

Michela Di Pierro, Marco Giani, Alfio Bronco, Francesca Maria Lembo, Roberto Rona, Giacomo Bellani, Giuseppe Foti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michela Di PierroSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Monza, Italy.
Marco GianiSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8048-2721
Alfio BroncoDepartment of Emergency and Intensive Care, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Monza, 20900 Monza, Italy.
Francesca Maria LemboSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Monza, Italy.
Roberto RonaDepartment of Emergency and Intensive Care, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Monza, 20900 Monza, Italy.
Giacomo BellaniSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3089-205X
Giuseppe FotiSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Monza, Italy.
Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Lariana · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe interest in protective ventilation strategies and individualized approaches for patients with severe illness on veno venous extracorporeal support has increased in recent years. Wide heterogeneity exists among patients with COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) and ARDS from other etiologies (NC-ARDS). EIT is a useful tool for the accurate analysis of regional lung volume distribution and allows for a tailored ventilatory setting. The aim of this work is to retrospectively describe the results of EIT assessments performed in patients C-ARDS and NC-ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO support.

methodsA clinical EIT-guided decremental PEEP trail was conducted for all patients included in the study and mechanically ventilated.

results12 patients with C-ARDS and 12 patients with NC-ARDS were included in the study for a total of 13 and 18 EIT evaluations, respectively. No significant differences in arterial blood gas, respiratory parameters, and regional ventilation before and after the EIT exam were recorded. The subset of patients with NC-ARDS whose EIT exam led to PEEP modification was characterized by a lower baseline compliance compared with the C-ARDS group: 18 (16-28) vs. 27 (24-30) (

conclusionsEIT is feasible in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS on veno-venous extracorporeal support and may help in tailoring the PEEP setting. Overall, severe COVID-19-related ARDS presents respiratory characteristics similar to severe "classical" NC-ARDS. However, C-ARDS is associated with a lower risk of overdistension at a higher PEEP level compared with NC-ARDS.

Indexed as

acute respiratory distress syndromeARDSCOVID-19ECMOmechanical ventilation

Identifiers

PMID35329965
PMCPMC8955184
OpenAlexW4220964090

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.