ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024
Estimating the change in pleural pressure using the change in central venous pressure in various clinical scenarios: a pig model study.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Central Venous Pressure Revisited: Physiology, Pitfalls, Misconceptions, and Modern Clinical Interpretation in Critical Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A multimodal characterization of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-associated lung edema.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
- Can we rely on "calibrated" central venous pressure to measure pleural pressure at the bedside?Intensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have previously reported a simple correction method for estimating pleural pressure (Ppl) using central venous pressure (CVP). However, it remains unclear whether this method is applicable to patients with varying levels of intravascular volumes and/or chest wall compliance. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of our method under different conditions of intravascular volume and chest wall compliance.
resultsTen anesthetized and paralyzed pigs (43.2 ± 1.8 kg) were mechanically ventilated and subjected to lung injury by saline lung lavage. Each pig was subjected to three different intravascular volumes and two different intraabdominal pressures. For each condition, the changes in the esophageal pressure (ΔPes) and the estimated ΔPpl using ΔCVP (cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl) were compared to the directly measured change in pleural pressure (Δd-Ppl), which was the gold standard estimate in this study. The cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl was calculated as κ × ΔCVP, where "κ" was the ratio of the change in airway pressure to the change in CVP during the occlusion test. The means and standard deviations of the Δd-Ppl, ΔPes, and cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl for all pigs under all conditions were 7.6 ± 4.5, 7.2 ± 3.6, and 8.0 ± 4.8 cmH
conclusionsThe CVP method can estimate the ΔPpl with reasonable accuracy, similar to Pes measurement. The accuracy was not affected by the intravascular volume or chest wall compliance.
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.