Observational studyPloS one2023
The role of PEEP for cannulation of the subclavian vein: A prospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe role of positive endexpiratory pressure (PEEP) for successful cannulation of the subclavian vein (SCV) remains inconclusive. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of different levels of PEEP on distance from SCV to parietal pleura (DVP) and on the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the SCV.
methodsInvasive mechanically ventilated adult patients with a clinical indication for a stepwise PEEP-trial (0, 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O) were included in this prospective observational single-center study. Ultrasound examinations of SCV were performed with a linear ultrasound probe using the infraclavicular view. DVP and CSA were measured on the right and left bodyside. Examinations were repeated at each PEEP step.
results27 patients were enrolled (12 female; 60±21 years; BMI 24.6±4.9 kg/m2; 20 patients on controlled, 7 on assisted ventilation). A statistically significant increase of DVP in the in-plane view was found on the left side which was not clinically relevant. No significant differences of DVP were observed in all other views. PEEP induced changes in CSAs were statistically significant but clinically not relevant on both sides. The largest change in CSA (2mm2) was observed when comparing PEEP 10 with PEEP 0 cm H2O.
conclusionA stepwise PEEP increase was not associated with clinically relevant changes of the DVP and CSA. Thus, a PEEP-optimization for the cannulation of the subclavian vein is not indicated.
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.