CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 469Respiratory Support and MechanismsNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchNosocomial Infections in ICU

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With an Esophageal Pressure–Guided Strategy vs an Empirical High PEEP-F io 2 Strategy on Death and Days Free From Mechanical Ventilation Among Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Beitler, Jeremy R., Sarge, Todd, Banner-Goodspeed, Valerie M., Gong, Michelle N., Cook, Deborah, Novack, Victor, Loring, Stephen H., Talmor, Daniel, for the EPVent-2 Study Group·2019·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2019.0555PMC PMC6439595
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Adjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung injury and improve patient outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether PEEP titration guided by esophageal pressure (PES), an estimate of pleural pressure, was more effective than empirical high PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) in moderate to severe ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 hospitals in North America. Two hundred mechanically ventilated patients aged 16 years and older with moderate to severe ARDS (Pao2:Fio2 ≤200 mm Hg) were enrolled between October 31, 2012, and September 14, 2017; long-term follow-up was completed July 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98). All participants received low tidal volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a ranked composite score incorporating death and days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors through day 28. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors, and need for rescue therapy. Results: Two hundred patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years; 46% female) and completed 28-day follow-up. The primary composite end point was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI, 41.7% to 57.5%]; P = .92). At 28 days, 33 of 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to 14.6%]; P = .88). Days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors was not significantly different (median [interquartile range]: 22 [15-24] vs 21 [16.5-24] days; median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2] days; P = .85). Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference, -8.3% [95% CI, -15.8% to -0.8%]; P = .04). None of the 7 other prespecified secondary clinical end points were significantly different. Adverse events included gross barotrauma, which occurred in 6 patients with PES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted in no significant difference in death and days free from mechanical ventilation. These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01681225.

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.2019.0555

Cites

43 of 43 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 469

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Beitler, J. R., Sarge, T., Banner-Goodspeed, V. M., Gong, M. N., Cook, D., Novack, V., Loring, S. H., Talmor, D., & for the EPVent-2 Study Group
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Soroka Medical Center (IL)
Corresponding author
Talmor, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2019-03-05
Volume
321
Issue
9
Pages
846
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2019.0555
PMC
PMC6439595
OpenAlex
W2912354430
Cited by
469
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 45
FWCI
44.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (UM1HL108724, K23HL133489, L30 HL129438)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
Keywords
acute respiratory distress syndrome, positive end-expiratory pressure, PEEP titration, esophageal pressure, pleural pressure, mechanical ventilation, low tidal volume, fraction of inspired oxygen, 28-day mortality, weaning from mechanical ventilation, salvage therapy, lung injury, ARDSNet
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Esophagus, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Pressure, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Respiratory Physiological Phenomena

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