ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
High PEEP Levels during CPR Improve Ventilation without Deleterious Haemodynamic Effects in Pigs.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous Compressions, Incomplete Ventilation? A Retrospective Analysis of mCPR in Admitted ED Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Chest compression synchronized ventilation during prolonged experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves oxygenation but may cause pneumothoraces.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Airway management and ventilation techniques in resuscitation during advanced life support: an update.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
- Oxygenation and ventilation during prolonged experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation with either continuous or 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratios together with 10 cmHIntensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
- Ultra-low tidal volume ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation shows no mitigating effect on pulmonary end-organ damage compared to standard ventilation: insights from a porcine model.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023Article
- The Influence of Ultra-Low Tidal Volume Ventilation during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Renal and Hepatic End-Organ Damage in a Porcine Model.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Synchronized ventilation during resuscitation in pigs does not necessitate high inspiratory pressures to provide adequate oxygenation.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.