ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2022
Comparison of gastric reactance with commonly used perfusion markers in a swine hypovolemic shock model.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastric reactance as a marker for major perioperative complications in high-risk cardiac surgery patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe gut has been hypothesized to be a protagonist tissue in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) for the past three decades. Gastric reactance (XL) is a potential perfusion marker derived from gastric impedance spectroscopy (GIS), which is an emerging tool through which living tissue can be continuously measured to determine its pathophysiological evolution. This study aimed to compare the performance of XL [positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC)] against commonly used perfusion markers before and during hypovolemic shock in swine subjects.
methodsProspective, controlled animal trial with two groups, control group (CG) N = 5 and shock (MAP ≤ 48 mmHg) group (SG) N = 16. Comparison time points were defined as T-2 (2 h before shock), T-1 (1 h before shock), T0 (shock), T1 (1 h after shock), and T2 (2 h after shock). Shock severity was assessed through blood gases, systemic and hemodynamic variables, and via histological examination for assessing inflammation-edema and detachment in the gastric mucosa. Macroscopic assessment of the gastric mucosa was defined in five levels (0-normal mucosa, 1-stippling or epithelial hemorrhage, 2-pale mucosa, 3-violet mucosa, and 4-marmoreal mucosa). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of perfusion markers and XL were calculated to identify optimal cutoff values and their individual ability to predict hypovolemic shock.
resultsComparison among the CG and the SG showed statistically significant differences in XL measurements at T-1, T0, T1, and T2, while lactate showed statistically significant differences until T1 and T2. Statistically significant differences were detected in mucosa class (p < 0.001) and in inflammation-edema in the gastric body and the fundus (p = 0.021 and p = 0.043). The performance of the minimum XL value per subject per event (XL_Min) was better (0.81 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.96, 0.93 ≤ PPV ≤ 1.00, 0.45 ≤ NPV ≤ 0.83) than maximum lactate value (Lac_Max) per subject per event (0.29 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.82, 0.82 ≤ PPV ≤ 0.91, 0.24 ≤ NPV ≤ 0.82). Cutoff values for XL_Min show progressive increases at each time point, while cutoff values for Lac_Max increase only at T2.
conclusionsXL proved to be an indirect and consistent marker of inadequate gastric mucosal perfusion, which shows significant and detectable changes before commonly used markers of global perfusion under the hypovolemic shock conditions outlined in this work.
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.