Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Effect of PEEP titration on the incidence of elevated driving pressure in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a randomized superiority trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuboptimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings may lead to cyclic lung overstress, especially in obese patients undergoing general anesthesia. We hypothesized that recruitment maneuver (RM) followed by driving pressure-guided PEEP titration - before and during pneumoperitoneum - would reduce the incidence of elevated driving pressure (> 15 cmH₂O) during pneumoperitoneum.
methodsIn this single-center, randomized, superiority trial, obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery were allocated into three groups: (1) recruitment maneuver followed by driving pressure-guided PEEP titration (RMTP); (2) recruitment maneuver followed by fixed PEEP (6 cmH₂O) (RMFP); or (3) no recruitment maneuver with fixed PEEP (6 cmH₂O) (NRMFP). RM was performed with incremental PEEP (6→10→15→20 cmH₂O) and inspiratory pressure (26→30→35→40 cmH₂O), whereas PEEP titration was conducted in a decremental fashion. The primary outcome was the incidence of driving pressure > 15 cmH₂O.
resultsEighty-five patients were screened and 78 randomized. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of driving pressure > 15 cmH₂O were observed before pneumoperitoneum or after pneumoperitoneum reversal. During pneumoperitoneum before RM, driving pressure > 15 cmH₂O occurred less frequently with RMTP than with RMFP and NRMFP (7.7% vs. 46.2% and 46.2%; RR 6.00, 95% CI 1.49-24.20; P = 0.01). After RM, the incidence remained lower with RMTP (3.8%) compared with RMFP (30.8%; RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.08-59.50; P = 0.04) and NRMFP (46.2%; RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.68-85.73; P = 0.01). Secondary outcomes, including postoperative pulmonary complications and hemodynamic variables, were similar between groups.
conclusionsRecruitment maneuver combined with driving pressure-guided PEEP titration improved intraoperative respiratory mechanics and reduced the incidence of elevated driving pressure during pneumoperitoneum, although no differences in postoperative clinical outcomes were observed.
trial registrationBrazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, RBR-5tbdpy5. Registered on January 29, 2024.
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.