Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36013161›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

High PEEP Levels during CPR Improve Ventilation without Deleterious Haemodynamic Effects in Pigs.

Miriam Renz, Leah Müllejans, Julian Riedel, Katja Mohnke, René Rissel, Alexander Ziebart, Bastian Duenges, Erik Kristoffer Hartmann, Robert Ruemmler

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miriam RenzDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Leah MüllejansDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Julian RiedelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Katja MohnkeDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
René RisselDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Alexander ZiebartDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Bastian DuengesDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Erik Kristoffer HartmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Robert RuemmlerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9265-6052
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft RU 2371/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Invasive ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is very complex due to unique thoracic pressure conditions. Current guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for ventilation during ongoing chest compressions regarding positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). This trial examines the cardiopulmonary effects of PEEP application during CPR. Methods: Forty-two German landrace pigs were anaesthetised, instrumented, and randomised into six intervention groups. Three PEEP levels (0, 8, and 16 mbar) were compared in high standard and ultralow tidal volume ventilation. After the induction of ventricular fibrillation, mechanical chest compressions and ventilation were initiated and maintained for thirty minutes. Blood gases, ventilation/perfusion ratio, and electrical impedance tomography loops were taken repeatedly. Ventilation pressures and haemodynamic parameters were measured continuously. Postmortem lung tissue damage was assessed using the diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) score. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, and p values <0.05 were considered significant. Results: The driving pressure (Pdrive) showed significantly lower values when using PEEP 16 mbar than when using PEEP 8 mbar (p = 0.045) or PEEP 0 mbar (p < 0.001) when adjusted for the ventilation mode. Substantially increased overall lung damage was detected in the PEEP 0 mbar group (vs. PEEP 8 mbar, p = 0.038; vs. PEEP 16 mbar, p = 0.009). No significant differences in mean arterial pressure could be detected. Conclusion: The use of PEEP during CPR seems beneficial because it optimises ventilation pressures and reduces lung damage without significantly compromising blood pressure. Further studies are needed to examine long-term effects in resuscitated animals.

Indexed as

EITMIGETporcineresuscitationventilation

Identifiers

PMID36013161
PMCPMC9410261
OpenAlexW4292687701

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.