ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
Toward optimal mechanical ventilation of the injured lung: the role of expiratory duration.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Positive pressure mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it can also increase mortality by causing ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) if applied inappropriately. Although strategies like low-tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning have been shown to reduce mortality, the optimal patient-specific approach to mechanical ventilation in ARDS has yet to be identified. The worst manifestations of acute lung injury arise when fluid and proteins from the blood leak through a damaged blood-gas barrier, accumulating in the airspaces and impairing the ability of pulmonary surfactant to lower surface tension. This amplifies the ventilatory stresses in the lung tissues, which further damages the blood-gas barrier, leading to a vicious cycle of worsening injury. Studies suggest that VILI may be most effectively avoided by preventing the atelectrauma caused during inspiration by the forced reopening of lung units that close during each expiration. Atelectrauma is conventionally mitigated with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), but it remains unclear if the algorithmic selection of PEEP leads to mortality reductions in ARDS. Animal studies, however, support the efficacy of exploiting the time-dependent nature of recruitment and derecruitment, for example through the use of brief expiratory durations that continually adapt to changing lung mechanics. Despite decades of research, it remains unclear how to minimize VILI in any given ARDS patient. Animal studies coupled with energy dissipation analysis indicate that the prevention of VILI requires, above all, avoidance of the atelectrauma caused by cyclic recruitment and derecruitment in the lung. In addition, the path to optimal mechanical ventilation in ARDS must be based not only on the amplitudes of the pressures applied to the lung but also on their temporal natures.
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.