Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39015782›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

The impact of positive end-expiratory pressure on right ventricular function in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS: a prospective paired-design study.

Luo Xingzheng, Gu Weiguang, Ye Quanqiu, Zhou Huifen, Zheng Zijun, Zou Qiming, Yuan Suhua, Zhang Fu, Jian Zhigang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Right ventricular-protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: phenotypes, monitoring and ventilatory management.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Right-sided heart failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Luo XingzhengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Gu WeiguangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Ye QuanqiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Zhou HuifenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Zheng ZijunDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Zou QimingDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Yuan SuhuaDepartment of Medical Records, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Zhang FuDepartment of Ultrasound, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
Jian ZhigangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiaolan People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effects of varying positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEPs) on right ventricular function, hemodynamics, oxygenation, and the incidence of acute cor pulmonale (ACP) in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This prospective paired-design study involved patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS in the ICU. Participants received lung-protective ventilation and hemodynamic monitoring. During the study, mechanical ventilation was administered with PEEPs of 5 cmH2O, 10 cmH2O, and 15 cmH2O, while maintaining an end-inspiratory plateau pressure ≤ 30 cmH2O. Various assessments, including transthoracic echocardiography, cardiac output measurement, and blood gas analysis, were conducted at baseline and after 1 h of ventilation at each PEEP. Subsequently, variations in ventilation oxygenation, echocardiographic parameters, and hemodynamic indicators under different PEEPs were analyzed to explore the potential effects of PEEP on right ventricular function and hemodynamics, as well as the incidence of ACP. Results: A total of 317 ARDS patients were screened. Among them, 104 met the diagnostic criteria for moderate-to-severe ARDS, and 52 completed the study. The baseline PEEP of these 52 participants, acquired before commencement, was 11.5 ± 1.7 cmH2O, and the incidence of ACP was 25.0% (13/52). Intensive care unit mortality, overall hospital mortality, and 28-day mortality rates were 19.2% (10/52), 21.2% (11/52), and 32.7% (17/52), respectively. During the study, ACP incidences at PEEPs of 5 cmH2O, 10 cmH2O, and 15 cmH2O were 17.3% (9/52), 21.2% (11/52), and 38.5% (20/52), respectively. Meanwhile, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio improved with increasing PEEP, reaching 162.0 (140.9, 174.0), 171.0 (144.0, 182.0), and 176.5 (151.0, 196) mmHg at PEEPs of 5 cmH2O, 10 cmH2O, and 15 cmH2O, respectively. In addition, higher PEEPs were associated with a slight increase in PaCO Conclusion: Different PEEPs can affect the incidence of ACP in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. High PEEP improves oxygenation and reduces extravascular lung water without significantly affecting the pulmonary vascular permeability index and left ventricular systolic function. Nevertheless, it can cause right ventricular dilation, as well as substantial declines in right ventricular systolic function and CI, thereby causing ACP.

Indexed as

acute cor pulmonaleARDShemodynamicspositive end-expiratory pressureright ventricular function

Identifiers

PMID39015782
PMCPMC11250698

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.