ArticleCritical care research and practice2022
Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation with Average Volume-Assured Pressure Support versus BiPAP S/T in De Novo Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.
Article in Critical care research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of the AVAPS ventilation mode combined with TCM monitoring in weaning patients with AECOPD.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The key to AVAPS success: Emphasizing proper patient selection following fixedlevel PS-NIV use in respiratory failure.Tuberkuloz ve toraks · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bilevel positive airway pressure in spontaneous/time and average volume-assured pressure support (BiPAP·S/T-AVAPS) could maintain an adequate tidal volume by reducing the patient's inspiratory effort; however, this ventilatory strategy has not been compared with other ventilatory modes, especially the conventional BiPAP S/T mode, when noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) is used. The primary objective of this study was to determine the rate of success and failure of the use of BiPAP·S/T-AVAPS versus BiPAP·S/T alone in patients with mild-to-moderate "de novo" hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods: This was a matched-cohort study. Subjects with mild-to-moderate de novo hypoxemic respiratory failure were divided into two groups according to the ventilatory strategy used. The subjects in the BiPAP·S/T group were paired with those in the BiPAP·S/T-AVAPS group. Results: A total of 58 subjects were studied. Twenty-nine subjects in the BiPAP·S/T group were paired with 29 subjects in the BiPAP·S/T-AVAPS group. Twenty patients (34.5%) presented with "failure of NIMV," while 38 (65.5%) patients did not. In addition, 13 (22.4%) patients died, while 45 (77.6%) recovered. No differences were found in the percentage of intubation ( Conclusion: The BiPAP S/T-AVAPS ventilator mode was not superior to the BiPAP·S/T mode. A high mortality rate was observed in patients with NIMV failure in both modes. This trial is registered with https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17904857.
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.