Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40114273›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025

Ventilation-induced acute kidney injury in acute respiratory failure: Do PEEP levels matter?

Martín H Benites, Fernando Suarez-Sipmann, Eduardo Kattan, Pablo Cruces, Jaime Retamal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Martín H BenitesUnidad de Pacientes Críticos, Clínica Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.
Fernando Suarez-SipmannCIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Eduardo KattanDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Pablo CrucesFacultad de Ciencias de La Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Jaime RetamalDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. jaimeretamal@gmail.com.

Funding

Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico 1241897
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients, and mechanical ventilation (MV) plays a critical role in its management. One of the key parameters of MV is the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), which helps to maintain an adequate lung functional volume. However, the optimal level of PEEP remains controversial. The classical approach in clinical trials for identifying the optimal PEEP has been to compare "high" and "low" levels in a dichotomous manner. High PEEP can improve lung compliance and significantly enhance oxygenation but has been inconclusive in hard clinical outcomes such as mortality and duration of MV. This discrepancy could be related to the fact that inappropriately high or low PEEP levels may adversely affect other organs, such as the heart, brain, and kidneys, which could counteract its potential beneficial effects on the lung. Patients with ARDS often develop acute kidney injury, which is an independent marker of mortality. Three primary mechanisms have been proposed to explain lung-kidney crosstalk during MV: gas exchange abnormalities, such as hypoxemia and hypercapnia; remote biotrauma; and hemodynamic changes, including reduced venous return and cardiac output. As PEEP levels increase, lung volume expands to a variable extent depending on mechanical response. This dynamic underlies two potential mechanisms that could impair venous return, potentially leading to splanchnic and renal congestion. First, increasing PEEP may enhance lung aeration, particularly in highly recruitable lungs, where previously collapsed alveoli reopen, increasing lung volume and pleural pressure, leading to vena cava compression, which can contribute to systemic venous congestion and abdominal organ impairment function. Second, in lungs with low recruitability, PEEP elevation may induce minimal changes in lung volume while increasing airway pressure, resulting in alveolar overdistension, vascular compression, and increased pulmonary vascular resistance. Therefore, we propose that high PEEP settings can contribute to renal congestion, potentially impairing renal function. This review underscores the need for further rigorous research to validate these perspectives and explore strategies for optimizing PEEP settings while minimizing adverse renal effects.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryPositive-Pressure RespirationRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory InsufficiencyHumansAcute kidney injuryAcute respiratory failurePositive end-expiratory pressureVenous congestion

Identifiers

PMID40114273
PMCPMC11927345

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.