Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37670235›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2023

Comparison of the effect of pressure control and volume control ventilation on endotracheal tube cuff pressure in patients undergoing general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation: a parallel randomized clinical trial.

Shahram Nasrolahzadeh, Javad Nourian, Ahmad Khosravi, Saeed Ghasempour, Ali Abbasi, Hossein Ebrahimi

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Reevaluating 30 cmHFrontiers in medicine · 2024
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shahram NasrolahzadehImam Hossein Hospital, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
Javad NourianClinical Research Development Unit, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
Ahmad KhosraviDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Health Related Social and Behavioral Sciences Research, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
Saeed GhasempourStudent Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
Ali AbbasiDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran. abbasi_msn@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-6208
Hossein EbrahimiCenter for Health Related Social and Behavioral Sciences Research, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
Imam Hossein Hospital · IRIranshahr University · IRShahroud University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation are prevalent interventions in the operating room and intensive care unit. Recently, the complications of endotracheal tube cuff pressure have been a topic of interest. Therefore, this study compared the effect of pressure control and volume control ventilation modes on the endotracheal cuff pressure rate in patients undergoing general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation.

methodsIn this triple-blinded randomized clinical trial, 50 patients undergoing open limb surgery and inguinal hernia were allocated to two groups of 25 based on inclusion criteria. After intubation, one group underwent ventilation on the pressure control ventilation mode, and the other underwent ventilation on the volume control ventilation mode. In both groups, using a manometer, the cuff's pressure was first adjusted in the range of 25-30 cm of water. Then, the cuff pressure was measured at 10, 20, and 30 min intervals. The data were statistically analyzed using independent t-test, and two-way repeated measures ANOVA.

resultsThe present study's findings showed that cuff pressure has significantly decreased over time in both study groups (F = 117.7, P < 0.001). However, a repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction showed no interaction between time and groups (F = 0.019, P = 0.98). The two groups had no significant difference in cuff pressure (F = 0.56, P = 0.458).

conclusionSince the cuff pressure has been significantly reduced in both groups over time, continuous monitoring of endotracheal tube cuff pressure in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation is essential. Therefore, it is suggested to keep the cuff pressure within the recommended range to prevent complications resulting from cuff pressure reduction, such as aspiration and ventilation decrease.

trial registrationThe study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trial on 23/02/2019 (trial registration number: IRCT20181018041376N1).

Indexed as

RespirationRespiration, ArtificialAnesthesia, GeneralHumansIntubation, IntratrachealIranEndotracheal tube cuff pressureMechanical ventilationPressure control ventilationVolume control ventilation

Identifiers

PMID37670235
PMCPMC10478180
OpenAlexW4386459784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.