Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40688250›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2025

Negative end-expiratory versus zero end-expiratory pressure flow-controlled ventilation in a porcine hemorrhagic shock model.

Julia Abram, Patrick Spraider, Julian Wagner, Manuela Ranalter, Alexandra Gratl, Daniela Lobenwein, Sabine Wipper, Gabriel Putzer, Tobias Hell, Pia Tscholl and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Julia AbramDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Patrick SpraiderDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Julian WagnerDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Manuela RanalterDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Alexandra GratlDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Daniela LobenweinDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Sabine WipperDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Gabriel PutzerDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Tobias HellData Lab Hell, Non-University Research Institution, Europastrasse 2a, 6170 Zirl, Austria.
Pia TschollData Lab Hell, Non-University Research Institution, Europastrasse 2a, 6170 Zirl, Austria.
Judith MartiniDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hemorrhagic shock is a life-threatening event whereby low flow may lead to end-organ dysfunction. This is aggravated by mechanical ventilation, where a positive intrathoracic pressure further deteriorates venous filling of the heart. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a mild negative end-expiratory pressure (NEEP) on mean arterial pressure compared to zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) in a porcine hemorrhagic shock model. Methods: In anesthetized pigs, hemorrhagic shock was induced by a standardized lesion in the common femoral artery. After achieving half of baseline arterial pressure, hemorrhage was stopped. Ventilation was then switched to either flow-controlled ventilation with ZEEP (0 cmH Results: The primary outcome parameter mean arterial pressure was significantly improved within the first 15 min with NEEP compared to ZEEP (49 vs 40 mmHg, MD 9 (95% CI 2 to 15); Conclusions: Application of -5 cmH

Indexed as

Animal modelFlow-controlled ventilationHemorrhagic ShockNegative end-expiratory pressure

Identifiers

PMID40688250
PMCPMC12271615

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.