ArticleJournal of anesthesia2026
Driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP versus fixed low PEEP in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeObese patients are vulnerable to atelectasis, impaired oxygenation, and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) during and after general anesthesia. Driving pressure-guided individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can improve intraoperative respiratory mechanics, but whether these physiological benefits translate into fewer PPCs in bariatric surgery remains uncertain.
methodsIn this single-center, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, 116 adults with obesity scheduled for elective laparoscopic bariatric surgery were randomized 1:1 to a driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP strategy or a conventional fixed low-PEEP strategy. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 ml/kg predicted body weight and an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.50. After a standardized recruitment maneuver, the driving pressure group underwent stepwise PEEP titration to identify the PEEP level associated with the lowest driving pressure; the conventional group received fixed PEEP of 5 cm H
resultsAll 116 randomized patients completed the trial. Any PPC occurred in 41 of 58 patients (70.7%) in the driving pressure group and 44 of 58 patients (75.9%) in the conventional group (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.79; P = 0.68). PPC severity scores were 1.0 ± 0.9 and 1.1 ± 0.8, respectively (mean difference, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.41 to 0.21; P = 0.53). Severe PPCs (grade > = 3) occurred in 3 patients (5.2%) in each group. Compared with conventional ventilation, driving pressure-guided ventilation produced lower intraoperative driving pressure, higher dynamic compliance, and a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio 1 h after surgical start; these physiological improvements were not accompanied by shorter hospital stay or fewer postoperative adverse events.
conclusionIn obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, a driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP strategy improved intraoperative respiratory mechanics and early oxygenation but did not reduce PPCs compared with conventional fixed low-PEEP ventilation. These findings suggest that optimizing respiratory-system driving pressure alone may be insufficient to improve short-term clinical pulmonary outcomes in this surgical population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42496731What 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.