Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36345923›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2022

Interpretation and use of intraoperative protective ventilation parameters: a scoping review.

Alejandro Placenti, Franco Fratebianchi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Alejandro PlacentiHospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Argentina.
Franco FratebianchiHospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thirty years ago, the traditional approach to mechanical ventilation consisted of the normalization of PaCO2 and pH at the expense of using a tidal volume (VT) of 10-15 mL kg-1. But then, the use of 6-8 mL kg-1 became a dogma for ventilating patients either with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or without lung disease in the operating theatre. It is currently recognized that even low tidal volumes may be excessive for some patients and insufficient for others, depending on its distribution in the aerated lung parenchyma. To carry out intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation, medical literature has focused on positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), plateau pressure (Paw plateau), and airway driving pressure (ΔPaw). However, considering its limitations, other parameters have emerged that represent a better reflection of isolated lung stress, such as transpulmonary pressure (PL) and transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL). These parameters are less generalized in clinical practice due to the requirement of an oeso-phageal balloon for their measurement and therefore their cumbersome application in the operating theatre. However, its study helps in the interpretation of the rest of the ventilator pressures to optimize intraoperative mechanical ventilation. This article defines and develops protective ventilation parameters, breaks down their determinants, mentions their limitations, and offers recommendations for their use intraoperatively.

Indexed as

Positive-Pressure RespirationRespiratory Distress SyndromeHumansLungRespiration, ArtificialTidal Volumedriving pressurePEEPplateau pressureprotective ventilationtidal volumetranspulmonary driving pressuretranspulmonary pressure

Identifiers

PMID36345923
PMCPMC10156545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.