ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Automated Versus Manual Occlusion Pressure at 100 ms With Hamilton C6 Using the Software Version 1.2.3: From Bedside to the Bench and Back to Bedside.
Article in Critical care explorations, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOcclusion pressure at 100 ms after the start of inspiratory effort (P0.1) is a marker of respiratory drive and a predictor of weaning outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. Some ventilators, like the Hamilton C6 (Hamilton Medical AG, Bonaduz, Switzerland), estimate P0.1 automatically (P0.1vent) without performing an actual airway occlusion, potentially leading to inaccuracies.
settingThis prospective clinical and bench study aimed to assess the accuracy of P0.1vent compared with the manual occlusion method (P0.1occ) during spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) and following a reventilation period with varying ventilator settings. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: The clinical part of the study included patients undergoing SBT on Hamilton C6 (software version 1.2.3) with zero pressure support (PS) and zero end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and reventilation (PS +8 cm H2O, PEEP +5 cm H2O). P0.1vent and P0.1occ were collected every 15 minutes. Bench part evaluated the P0.1vent and P0.1occ of the Hamilton C6 (software version 1.2.3) connected to a lung simulator (ASL 5000) creating different breathing efforts across different lung mechanics and varying PS and PEEP levels. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN
resultsIn patients, P0.1vent values were significantly higher than P0.1occ (median, 11.0 vs. 1.0 cm H2O; p < 0.001), with a mean bias of 8.5 cm H2O. Similar overestimations were observed during the reventilation period (6.0 vs. 1.0 cm H2O; mean difference, 6.5 cm H2O; p < 0.001). Bench results confirmed the variable accuracy of P0.1vent found in the clinical part of the study, with biases ranging from nearly perfect (0.2 cm H2O) under high PS to 2.3 cm H2O under low PS.
conclusionsAutomatic P0.1 estimation by the Hamilton C6 (software version 1.2.3) is inaccurate during SBTs. Manual occlusion remains essential for reliable P0.1 assessment at the bedside.
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.