Trial reportScientific reports2026
Driving pressure guided ventilation with lung ultrasound reduces pulmonary complications after epigastric surgery at high altitude.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- The effect of ultrasound-guided lung recruitment maneuvers on postoperative atelectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients undergoing epigastric surgery at high altitudes are at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) due to hypobaric hypoxia and altered respiratory mechanics. This study aimed to determine whether a protective ventilation strategy combining driving pressure (ΔP) guidance and lung ultrasound (LUS) monitoring could reduce PPCs compared with conventional protective ventilation in patients undergoing epigastric surgery on the Tibetan Plateau(> 3500 m). In this randomized controlled trial, 152 adult patients scheduled for elective epigastric surgery were assigned to either conventional protective ventilation (n = 75) or ΔP-guided ventilation (n = 77). The conventional group received a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP of 5 cmH2O, and a standard recruitment maneuver. The ΔP-guided group received the same tidal volume with individualized PEEP titration to minimize ΔP, combined with an LUS-guided recruitment maneuver. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs within seven days after surgery, assessed using the modified Kroenke severity score. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative ΔP, mechanical power, oxygenation, respiratory compliance, and hospital length of stay (assessed on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7). For each patient, the highest modified Kroenke score observed across the scheduled assessments within 7 days was used for analysis. The incidence of clinically significant PPCs (grade ≥ 2) was significantly lower in the ΔP-guided group than in the conventional group. Compared with conventional ventilation, ΔP-guided ventilation achieved lower driving pressure, higher individualized PEEP, improved oxygenation indices, and fewer cases of atelectasis. Mechanical power was modestly higher in the ΔP-guided group, while remaining within a low range in both groups. Hospital stay was shorter in the ΔP-guided group. ΔP-guided ventilation combined with LUS monitoring significantly reduced PPCs and improved intraoperative respiratory mechanics and oxygenation in patients undergoing epigastric surgery at high altitude. This strategy provides a physiologically informed approach to lung protection under hypobaric hypoxia.Trial registration: This trial was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR) under the registration number ChiCTR2200057189 (02/03/2022).
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.