Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2024
Comparison of lung aeration loss in open abdominal oncologic surgeries after ventilation with electrical impedance tomography-guided PEEP versus conventional PEEP: a pilot feasibility study.
Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-drug perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- "Tailored" vs. "one-size-fits-all": current knowledge of individualized PEEP and constant PEEP strategy during the perioperative period.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Electrical Impedance Tomography, Artificial Intelligence, and Variable Ventilation: Transforming Respiratory Monitoring and Treatment in Critical Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting literature lacks high-quality evidence regarding the ideal intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to minimize postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We hypothesized that applying individualized PEEP derived from electrical impedance tomography would reduce the severity of postoperative lung aeration loss, deterioration in oxygenation, and PPC incidence.
methodsA pilot feasibility study was conducted on 36 patients who underwent open abdominal oncologic surgery. The patients were randomized to receive individualized PEEP or conventional PEEP at 4 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the impact of individualized PEEP on changes in the modified lung ultrasound score (MLUS) derived from preoperative and postoperative lung ultrasonography. A higher MLUS indicated greater lung aeration loss. The secondary outcomes were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PPC incidence.
resultsA significant increase in the postoperative MLUS (12.0 ± 3.6 vs 7.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001) and a significant difference between the postoperative and preoperative MLUS values (7.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.0 ± 1.6, P < 0.001) were found in the conventional PEEP group, indicating increased lung aeration loss. In the conventional PEEP group, the intraoperative PaO2/FiO2 ratios were significantly lower but not the postoperative ratios. The PPC incidence was not significantly different between the groups. Post-hoc analysis showed the increase in lung aeration loss and deterioration of intraoperative oxygenation correlated with the deviation from the individualized PEEP.
conclusionsIndividualized PEEP appears to protect against lung aeration loss and intraoperative oxygenation deterioration. The advantage was greater in patients whose individualized PEEP deviated more from the conventional PEEP.
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.