ArticleJournal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
Retrospective Evaluation of the Association Between Mechanical Power and Outcome in Mechanically Ventilated Dogs from a Multicenter Database (2019-2025): 76 Cases.
Article in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001). 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.
- Retrospective Evaluation of the Association Between Mechanical Power and Outcome in Mechanically Ventilated Dogs from a Multicenter Database (2019-2025): 76 Cases.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)Article
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
objectiveTo assess the association between mechanical power (MP) and survival in mechanically ventilated dogs with primary pulmonary parenchymal disease and to compare its prognostic performance against individual ventilator parameters and oxygenation indices.
designRetrospective, multicenter observational cohort study.
settingThree veterinary medical teaching institutions and one private veterinary referral center. ANIMALS: Seventy-six client-owned dogs mechanically ventilated for primary pulmonary parenchymal disease between March 2019 and March 2025.
interventionsNone.
methodsMP (J/min/kg) was calculated using a simplified equation for pressure-controlled (PC) ventilation: 0.098 × respiratory rate × tidal volume × (dynamic driving pressure + positive end-expiratory pressure). Median values were calculated per patient for each of the first 3 ventilation days. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between MP, its components, and survival. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to evaluate predictive performance.
resultsSurvivors had significantly lower MP values than nonsurvivors across all 3 initial days of ventilation (Day 1: 0.30 vs. 0.57 J/min/kg; Day 2: 0.33 vs. 0.55 J/min/kg; Day 3: 0.31 vs. 0.47 J/min/kg; p = 0.008 to <0.001). A 0.05-J/min/kg increase in MP was associated with a 19%, 26%, and 34% greater likelihood of mortality on Days 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with good discriminative performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.80, 0.84, and 0.84). Dynamic variables (respiratory rate, dynamic driving pressure, peak inspiratory pressure) were more strongly associated with survival than static variables (tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure).
conclusionsMP is associated with outcome in dogs undergoing mechanical ventilation and demonstrates stronger predictive value than its individual components. These findings align with human data and support considering MP during ventilator management. Further studies are needed to define thresholds and evaluate whether reducing MP improves outcomes.
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.