ArticleTrials2026
Peri-arrest ventilation with positive end-expiratory-pressure vs. zero end-expiratory-pressure in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (PerAVent)-a prospective, cluster-randomized multicenter trial.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06836830 (Peri-Arrest Ventilation With Positive End-Expiratory-Pressure vs. Zero End-Expiratory-Pressure in Out-of-Hospital-Cardiac-Arrest), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Peri-Arrest Ventilation With Positive End-Expiratory-Pressure vs. Zero End-Expiratory-Pressure in Out-of-Hospital-Cardiac-Arrest
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a major cause of mortality, with low survival probabilities to hospital discharge. Despite the frequent use of airway management and mechanical ventilation during resuscitation, there is limited evidence regarding the optimal ventilation strategy to improve oxygen delivery and patient outcomes. The present study aims to investigate the effects of positive-end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) set at 5 mbar compared to zero-end-expiratory-pressure (ZEEP) on the return of spontaneous-circulation (ROSC) in adult patients with OHCA.
methodsThis is a prospective, multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted across emergency medical services (EMS) in the regions of Gütersloh, Minden-Lübbecke, and Osnabrück. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with OHCA who are undergoing mechanical ventilation through an airway device will be enrolled. The clusters (regional districts) will be randomized into two groups: one group will receive ventilation with PEEP set at 5 mbar (intervention group), while the other group will receive ventilation with ZEEP (control group). The study's primary endpoint is the occurence of ROSC. Secondary endpoints include occurence of re-arrest, death during pre-hospital care phase, hospital admission during ongoing resuscitation, hospital admission with spontaneous circulation, peripheral oxygen saturation, and endtidal CO DISCUSSION: Optimal ventilation strategies during OHCA have not been well established. The use of PEEP may improve oxygenation and oxygen delivery. This study aims to provide crucial data on whether the application of PEEP at 5 mbar vs. 0 mbar can improve the probability of ROSC without adversely affecting hemodynamics. The findings could inform future guidelines on ventilation strategies in resuscitation.
trial registrationThe trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT06836830. 24.02.2025 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06836830?term=gerrit%20jansen&rank=2 .
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.