ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2025
Flow-controlled ventilation versus pressure-controlled ventilation in moderate to severe ARDS patients: a randomized crossover physiological study.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06051188 (Flow Versus Pressure Controlled Ventilation in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), which is not on this 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.
Flow Versus Pressure Controlled Ventilation in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Continuous-flow ventilation with VENTIJET in moderate ARDS: a pilot safety and feasibility study.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) it is of great importance to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) using lung protective ventilation. VILI has been associated with a high mechanical power (MP). Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) could play a role in decreasing the risk of VILI by lowering the MP and preventing atelectrauma by a controlled expiration.
objectivesTo assess the difference in MP between FCV and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Secondary aims were to explore the effect of FCV in terms of ventilation distribution and homogeneity, measured by electrical impedance tomography (EIT).
methodsRandomized crossover physiological pilot study in ICU patients with a moderate to severe ARDS. Patients were randomized between 90 min of FCV followed by 90 min of PCV, or vice versa. Intratracheal and esophageal pressure, airway flow and EIT were measured continuously, and hemodynamics and venous and arterial blood gases were obtained repeatedly. Pressure-volume loops were constructed for the calculation of the MP.
resultsIn 10 patients, optimized FCV (compliance-guided driving pressure) versus PCV resulted in a similar MP (12.6 vs. 14.8 J/min; p = 0.302). A stable gas exchange at similar minute volumes was obtained. Optimized FCV resulted in increased tidal ventilation of the mid-ventral to dorsal regions compared to PCV, but EIT demonstrated a trend towards overdistension especially of the non-dependent lung regions. Because of this trend towards overdistension, severe hypercapnia in one patient, and inability to apply FCV as intended, the study was stopped early due to safety concerns.
conclusionsOptimized FCV compared with PCV resulted in a similar MP and tends towards overdistension in patients with moderate to severe ARDS.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06051188. Registered 22 September 2023.
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.