ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Variable pressure support ventilation vs. biphasic positive airway pressure/airway pressure release ventilation in experimental acute respiratory failure.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation (MV) can improve cardiorespiratory function and lung protection. Biphasic Positive Airway Pressure (BIPAP) and Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) are common MV modes that combine spontaneous breathing with controlled ventilation. Variable pressure support ventilation (PSV), which varies breath-by-breath pressure support randomly, has been shown to improve gas exchange and reduce lung injury compared to conventional MV modes. This study aimed to compare the short-term effects of variable PSV with BIPAP in a model of acute respiratory failure, hypothesizing that variable PSV would improve lung function without increasing lung damage or inflammation.
methodsIn an exploratory randomized study with 18 pigs, lung injury was induced by lung lavage. Over 4 h, two lung protective strategies were applied with individually optimized PEEP: (1) BIPAP with non-assisted spontaneous breathing and (2) variable PSV, maintaining a mean tidal volume of 6 ml/kg body weight while varying pressure support. Plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples were collected for inflammation markers, and lung damage was assessed histologically. Gene expression of inflammatory cytokines was also measured.
resultsVariable PSV resulted in slightly improved gas exchange with higher mean tidal volumes and minute ventilation compared to BIPAP, as well as reduced work of breathing. Histopathological analysis showed alveolar damage to be mild, with no significant overall difference between the groups. However, variable PSV caused more alveolar edema, especially in gravity-dependent lung regions, and increased the wet-to-dry ratio compared with BIPAP. Despite these differences, there were no significant changes in systemic or pulmonary inflammatory cytokines or gene expression between the two groups.
conclusionIn this model of acute respiratory failure, variable PSV with a protective tidal volume of 6 ml/kg resulted in marginal, but clinically insignificant improvements in gas exchange and reduced work of breathing compared to BIPAP with non-assisted spontaneous breathing. Although inflammatory markers and overall diffuse alveolar damage did not differ between ventilation modes, the findings suggest a possible association between variable PSV and increased pulmonary oedema compared with BIPAP.
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.