ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024
Safety of flow-controlled ventilation with positive and negative end-expiratory pressure in a swine model of intracranial hypertension.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of 5 cmH₂O Versus 10 cmH₂O PEEP on Cerebral Oxygen Saturation in Brain Tumor Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Trial
- Bridging brain and lung: optimizing mechanical ventilation in acute brain injury.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
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
backgroundPatients with brain damage often require mechanical ventilation. Although lung-protective ventilation is recommended, the application of increased positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been associated with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) due to altered cerebral venous return. This study investigates the effects of flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) using negative end-expiratory pressures (NEEP), on cerebral hemodynamics in a swine model of intracranial hypertension.
methodsA model of intracranial hypertension involving bilateral trepan bolt holes was performed in 14 pigs. Pressure-controlled volume-guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG) with PEEP and FCV using PEEP and then NEEP were applied. Intracranial pressure and oxygenation, as well as systemic hemodynamics and gas exchange parameters, were continuously monitored. Data were collected at baseline and at varying PEEP levels for both PCV-VG and FCV ventilation modalities. Following this, FCV ventilation and NEEP levels of -3, -6 and -9 cmH
resultsICP remained stable with low PEEP levels, but significantly decreased with NEEP. Lower ICP following NEEP improved cerebral perfusion pressure and cerebral tissue oxygenation (p < 0.05 for all). FCV with NEEP at EEP-6 and EEP-9 significantly improved cardiac output and mean arterial pressure (MAP), compared to PCV-VG and FCV using PEEP (p < 0.05, respectively). There were no significant differences in gas exchange parameters between modalities (PCV-VG vs FCV), and between the application of PEEP or NEEP. No significant correlations were observed between ΔICP and ΔMAP.
conclusionThe application of FCV with NEEP appears to be a safe ventilation mode and offers an additional tool for controlling severe intracranial pressure episodes. These findings warrant validation in future studies and may lead to important potential applications in clinical practice.
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.