ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Esophageal pressure monitoring and its clinical significance in severe blast lung injury.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on biomarkers of blast lung injury: Transition from traditional indicators to novel molecular markers.iScience · 2026Review
- Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: Precision Mechanical Ventilation in ARDS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Prediction of primary blast lung injury outcomes in goats using CT and injury factors.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Brain Protective Ventilation Strategies in Severe Acute Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- CT radiomics to assess severity of explosion-induced primary blast lung injury in goats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of blast lung injury (BLI) has been escalating annually due to military conflicts and industrial accidents. Currently, research into these injuries predominantly uses animal models. Despite the availability of various models, there remains a scarcity of studies focused on monitoring respiratory mechanics post-BLI. Consequently, our objective was to develop a model for monitoring esophageal pressure (Pes) following BLI using a biological shock tube (BST), aimed at providing immediate and precise monitoring of respiratory mechanics parameters post-injury. Methods: Six pigs were subjected to BLI using a BST, during which Pes was monitored. We assessed vital signs; conducted blood gas analysis, hemodynamics evaluations, and lung ultrasound; and measured respiratory mechanics before and after the inflicted injury. Furthermore, the gross anatomy of the lungs 3 h post-injury was examined, and hematoxylin and eosin staining was conducted on the injured lung tissues for further analysis. Results: The pressure in the experimental section of the BST reached 402.52 ± 17.95 KPa, with a peak pressure duration of 53.22 ± 1.69 ms. All six pigs exhibited an anatomical lung injury score ≥3, and pathology revealed classic signs of severe BLI. Post-injury vital signs showed an increase in HR and SI, along with a decrease in MAP ( Conclusion: We have successfully developed a novel respiratory mechanics monitoring model for severe BLI. This model is reliable, repeatable, stable, effective, and user-friendly. Pes monitoring offers a non-invasive and straightforward alternative to blood gas analysis, facilitating early clinical decision-making. Our animal study lays the groundwork for the early diagnosis and management of severe BLI in clinical settings.
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.