ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Positive end-expiratory pressure increases intracranial pressure but does not affect PRx, regardless of body position, in a porcine ARDS model.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning are key components in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), improving gas exchange and protecting the lung via enhanced lung recruitment and homogenization of lung aeration. However, higher intrathoracic pressures may increase intracranial pressure (ICP) or impair cerebral autoregulation, as reflected by vascular reactivity. This study investigated whether stepwise PEEP elevations affect ICP, the pressure reactivity index (PRx), and brain tissue oxygenation (PbO2) in a porcine ARDS model, comparing prone and supine positions, and whether baseline physiological variables modify the ICP response. Methods: Twelve anesthetized pigs with bronchial lavage-induced ARDS were studied in a randomized crossover design with stepwise PEEP increases (5, 10, 15, and 20 cmH2O) in prone and supine positions while maintaining stable arterial carbon dioxide tension and cerebral perfusion pressure. Intracranial pressure, PRx, and PbO2 were continuously monitored, and effects of PEEP and position were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models and analysis of variance. Results: Increasing PEEP was associated with a progressive rise in ICP, whereas PRx remained unchanged across PEEP levels and body positions. PbO2 showed a non-significant upward trend with increasing PEEP, while the PbO2/PaO2 ratio remained stable. Higher baseline pulmonary artery pressure was associated with larger ICP increases, whereas higher baseline respiratory rate was associated with attenuated responses. Conclusion: In this porcine ARDS model, moderate PEEP escalation resulted in a modest increase in ICP without impairment of cerebrovascular reactivity, with similar effects in prone and supine positions, suggesting that lung protective ventilation strategies may be compatible with stable intracranial physiology when arterial carbon dioxide tension and cerebral perfusion pressure are controlled.
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.