Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39210377›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2024

The ventilator of the future: key principles and unmet needs.

John J Marini, Luciano Gattinoni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

John J MariniPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Regions Hospital and University of Minnesota, 640 Jackson St., MS 11203B, St. Paul, MN, 55101-2595, USA. marin002@umn.edu.
Luciano GattinoniDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Persistent shortcomings of invasive positive pressure ventilation make it less than an ideal intervention. Over the course of more than seven decades, clinical experience and scientific investigation have helped define its range of hazards and limitations. Apart from compromised airway clearance and lower airway contamination imposed by endotracheal intubation, the primary hazards inherent to positive pressure ventilation may be considered in three broad categories: hemodynamic impairment, potential for ventilation-induced lung injury, and impairment of the respiratory muscle pump. To optimize care delivery, it is crucial for monitoring and machine outputs to integrate information with the potential to impact the underlying requirements of the patient and/or responses of the cardiopulmonary system to ventilatory interventions. Trending analysis, timely interventions, and closer communication with the caregiver would limit adverse clinical trajectories. Judging from the rapid progress of recent years, we are encouraged to think that insights from physiologic research and emerging technological capability may eventually address important aspects of current deficiencies.

Indexed as

Ventilators, MechanicalHemodynamicsHumansPositive-Pressure RespirationRespiration, ArtificialVentilator-Induced Lung InjuryAutomated ventilationCardiopulmonary monitoringClosed loop ventilationMechanical ventilationRespiratory musclesTrend analysisVentilator-induced lung injuryVILI

Identifiers

PMID39210377
PMCPMC11363519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.