Trial reportJAMA network open2025
Preoxygenation With and Without Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Lung-Healthy Volunteers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Three Pre-oxygenation Strategies for Prehospital Anaesthesia Induction in Children, Normal Weight Adults and Obese Adults
Physiological Effects of Different Preoxygenation Strategies in Adults and Children: A Comparative Study of NRM and BVM With and Without PEEP
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoxygenation when noninvasive ventilation is unavailable: positive pressure still matters.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Preoxygenation when noninvasive ventilation is unavailable: authors' reply.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of prone positioning and PEEP on respiratory mechanics in children undergoing scoliosis surgery.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Article
- Efficacy of preoxygenation by spontaneous tidal volume breathing for 3 minutes in pediatric patients aged 0-6 years: a prospective observational study.Translational pediatrics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Optimal preoxygenation is critical in emergency medicine to prevent desaturation during airway management, especially in high-risk populations. Identifying the most effective preoxygenation device across diverse patient groups remains a clinical priority. Objective: To compare the efficacy of 3 preoxygenation devices-nonrebreather mask (NRM), bag-valve mask (BVM), and BVM with positive end-expiratory pressure (BVM plus PEEP)-in lung-healthy volunteers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 26 to 31, 2024, at Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy. Volunteer participants included lung-healthy adults with normal weight (NM), adults with overweight or obesity (OW-OB), and children aged 6 to 12 years. Exposures: Preoxygenation using each device (NRM, BVM, BVM plus PEEP) with 15 L/min of oxygen for a duration of 3 minutes in a randomized order. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was expiratory oxygen concentration (Feo2) at the end of preoxygenation. Secondary outcomes included ventilation in dependent lung regions assessed using electrical impedance tomography, noninvasive continuous monitoring of oxygenation status (oxygenation reserve index [ORI]) at the end of preoxygenation, and the time taken for ORI to return to baseline values. Results: The study included 53 participants, 39 male (74%) and 14 female (26%), of whom 16 were adults with NW (mean [SD] age, 36 [11] years), 18 were adults with OW-OB (mean [SD] age, 45 [11] years), and 19 were children (mean [SD] age, 8 [3] years). Mean (SD) Feo2 at the end of preoxygenation was higher with BVM and BVM plus PEEP compared with NRM in adults with NW (72.1% [5.9%] and 75.6% [4.3%], respectively, vs 52.5% [6.1%]; P < .001), adults with OW-OB (65.8% [10.4%] and 73.0% [6.4%], respectively, vs 51.9% [6.1%]; P < .001), and children (64.6% [13.4%] and 67.5% [10.2%], respectively, vs 38.5% [7.5%]; P < .001). Ventilation in dependent lung regions was higher with BVM plus PEEP than NRM in adults with NW (BVM plus PEEP, 51.9 [9.3] vs NRM, 47.0 [5.7]; P = .03) and children (BVM plus PEEP, 53.0 [7.3] vs NRM, 47.7 [7.0]; P = .002). ORI at the end of preoxygenation was higher with BVM plus PEEP than with NRM in adults with OW-OB (BVM plus PEEP, 0.79 [0.13] vs NRM, 0.73 [0.13]; P < .001). Additionally, the mean (SE) time for ORI to return to baseline was longer with BVM plus PEEP compared with NRM in both adults with OW-OB (BVM plus PEEP, 196 [74] seconds vs NRM, 158 [53] seconds; P = .01) and children (BVM plus PEEP, 115 [59] seconds vs NRM, 62 [36] seconds; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this crossover randomized clinical trial, preoxygenation with PEEP was more effective than preoxygenation without PEEP, resulting in higher Feo2 values and improved ventilation in dependent lung regions. These findings suggest that BVM plus PEEP should be prioritized for preoxygenation in emergency settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06370689.
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.