Trial reportThe clinical respiratory journal2023
An investigation on the respiratory mechanics of mechanically ventilated patients during spontaneous breathing trials with enhanced low-level pressure support ventilation.
Trial report in The clinical respiratory journal, 2023. 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.
- An investigation on the respiratory mechanics of mechanically ventilated patients during spontaneous breathing trials with enhanced low-level pressure support ventilation.The clinical respiratory journal · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLow-level pressure support ventilation (PSV) is most commonly adopted in spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs), and some have proposed setting the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to 0 cmH MATERIAL AND
methodA prospective randomized self-controlled crossover design was adopted in this study, which involved enrolling 30 difficult-to-wean patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University between July 2019 and September 2021. Patients were subjected to the S group (pressure support: 8 cmH
resultThe S group showed higher airway pressure (Paw), intragastric pressure (Pga) and airway pressure-time product (PTP) than the S1 group. The S group also showed a shorter inspiratory trigger delay, (93.80 ± 47.85) versus (137.33 ± 85.66) ms (P = 0.004); and fewer abnormal triggers, (0.97 ± 2.65) versus (2.67 ± 4.48) (P = 0.042) compared with the S1 group. Stratification based on the causes of mechanical ventilation revealed that under the S1 protocol, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) had a longer inspiratory trigger delay compared to both post-thoracic surgery (PTS) patients and patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Despite providing greater respiratory support, S group led to significant reductions in inspiratory trigger delay and less abnormal triggers compared to S1 group, especially among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
conclusionThese findings suggest that the zero PEEP group was more likely to induce a higher number of patient-ventilator asynchronies in difficult-to-wean patients.
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.