Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of a Lung Protective Strategy for Organ Donors on Eligibility and Availability of Lungs for Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Mascia, Luciana, Pasero, Daniela, Slutsky, Arthur S., Arguis, M. Jose, Berardino, Maurizio, Grasso, Salvatore, Munari, Marina, Boifava, Silvia, Cornara, Giuseppe, Della Corte, Francesco, Vivaldi, Nicoletta, Malacarne, Paolo, Del Gaudio, Paolo, Livigni, Sergio, Zavala, Elisabeth, Filippini, Claudia, Martin, Erica L., Donadio, Pier Paolo, Mastromauro, Ilaria, Ranieri, V. Marco·2010·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Many potential donor lungs deteriorate between the time of brain death and evaluation for transplantation suitability, possibly because of the ventilatory strategy used after brain death. OBJECTIVE: To test whether a lung protective strategy increases the number of lungs available for transplantation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter randomized controlled trial of patients with beating hearts who were potential organ donors conducted at 12 European intensive care units from September 2004 to May 2009 in the Protective Ventilatory Strategy in Potential Lung Donors Study. Interventions Potential donors were randomized to the conventional ventilatory strategy (with tidal volumes of 10-12 mL/kg of predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] of 3-5 cm H(2)O, apnea tests performed by disconnecting the ventilator, and open circuit for airway suction) or the protective ventilatory strategy (with tidal volumes of 6-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight, PEEP of 8-10 cm H(2)O, apnea tests performed by using continuous positive airway pressure, and closed circuit for airway suction). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of organ donors meeting eligibility criteria for harvesting, number of lungs harvested, and 6-month survival of lung transplant recipients. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after enrolling 118 patients (59 in the conventional ventilatory strategy and 59 in the protective ventilatory strategy) because of termination of funding. The number of patients who met lung donor eligibility criteria after the 6-hour observation period was 32 (54%) in the conventional strategy vs 56 (95%) in the protective strategy (difference of 41% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 26.5% to 54.8%]; P <.001). The number of patients in whom lungs were harvested was 16 (27%) in the conventional strategy vs 32 (54%) in the protective strategy (difference of 27% [95% CI, 10.0% to 44.5%]; P = .004). Six-month survival rates did not differ between recipients who received lungs from donors ventilated with the conventional strategy compared with the protective strategy (11/16 [69%] vs 24/32 [75%], respectively; difference of 6% [95% CI, -22% to 32%]). CONCLUSION: Use of a lung protective strategy in potential organ donors with brain death increased the number of eligible and harvested lungs compared with a conventional strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00260676.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2010.1796

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Mascia, L., Pasero, D., Slutsky, A. S., Arguis, M. J., Berardino, M., Grasso, S., Munari, M., Boifava, S., Cornara, G., Della Corte, F., Vivaldi, N., Malacarne, P., Del Gaudio, P., Livigni, S., Zavala, E., Filippini, C., Martin, E. L., Donadio, P. P., Mastromauro, I., & Ranieri, V. M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2010-12-15
Volume
304
Issue
23
Pages
2620
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2169686972
Cited by
361
References
3
FWCI
21.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.