ArticleAcute and critical care2022
Perioperative hemodynamic protective assessment of adaptive support ventilation usage in pediatric surgical patients.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of ventilation mode on acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with respiratory failure.World journal of clinical cases · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic protective effects of perioperative ventilation in pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and adaptive support ventilation (ASV) modes based on non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring indicators.
methodsThe study included 32 patients who were scheduled for planned open abdominal surgery. Depending on the chosen ventilation strategy, patients were included in two groups of PCV mode ventilation (n=14) and ASV mode ventilation (n=18). The hemodynamic effects of the ventilation strategies were assessed by estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) and cardiac index (esCCI).
resultsPreoperative cardiac output (CO) was 6.1±1.3 L/min in group 1 patients and 6.3±0.8 L/min in group 2 patients, and preoperative cardiac index (CI) was 3.9±0.4 L/min/m2 in group 1 patients and 3.8±0.8 L/min/m2 in group 2 patients. The ejection fraction (EF) in group 1 subjects was 55.4%±0.3%; this rate was 56.5%±0.5% in group 2 subjects. Group 1 patients experienced a 14.7% CO decrease to 5.2±0.7 L/min, a 17.9% CI decrease to 3.2±0.6 L/min/m2 , and a 12.8% mean arterial pressure decrease to 82.3±9.4 mm Hg 30 minutes after the start of surgery. One hour after the start of surgery, the CO mean values of group 2 patients were lower than baseline by 7.9% and differed from the dynamics of patients in group 1, in whom CO was lower than baseline by 13.1%. At the end of the operation, the CO values were lower than baseline by 11.5% and 6.3% in patients of groups 1 and 2, respectively. Our data showed that the changes in EF during and after surgery correlated with CO indicators determined by the esCCO.
conclusionsIn our study, perioperative ventilation in ASV mode was more protective than PCV mode and was characterized by lower tidal volume (16.2%) and driving pressure (12.1%). Hemodynamically-controlled mechanical ventilation reduces the negative impact of cardiopulmonary interactions.
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.