Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38706001›Full record

ReviewJournal of intensive care2024

Recent advances in cardiorespiratory monitoring in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.

Davide Chiumello, Antonio Fioccola

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
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

2 authors.

Davide ChiumelloDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. davide.chiumello@unimi.it.
Antonio FioccolaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances on cardiorespiratory monitoring applied in ARDS patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation and noninvasive ventilatory support are available in the literature and may have potential prognostic implication in ARDS treatment. MAIN BODY: The measurement of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry is a valid, low-cost, noninvasive alternative for assessing arterial oxygenation. Caution must be taken in patients with darker skin pigmentation, who may experience a greater incidence of occult hypoxemia. Dead space surrogates, which are easy to calculate, have important prognostic implications. The mechanical power, which can be automatically computed by intensive care ventilators, is an important parameter correlated with ventilator-induced lung injury and outcome. In patients undergoing noninvasive ventilatory support, the use of esophageal pressure can measure inspiratory effort, avoiding possible delays in endotracheal intubation. Fluid responsiveness can also be evaluated using dynamic indices in patients ventilated at low tidal volumes (< 8 mL/kg). In patients ventilated at high levels of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), the PEEP test represents a valid alternative to passive leg raising. There is growing evidence on alternative parameters for evaluating fluid responsiveness, such as central venous oxygen saturation variations, inferior vena cava diameter variations and capillary refill time.

conclusionCareful cardiorespiratory monitoring in patients affected by ARDS is crucial to improve prognosis and to tailor treatment via mechanical ventilatory support.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory distress syndromeFluid therapyOxygen deliveryVentilator-induced lung injury

Identifiers

PMID38706001
PMCPMC11070081

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.