The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
Summary Background The role of positive end-expiratory pressure in mechanical ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery remains uncertain. Levels of pressure higher than 0 cm H2O might protect against postoperative pulmonary complications but could also cause intraoperative circulatory depression and lung injury from overdistension. We tested the hypothesis that a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment manoeuvres protects against postoperative pulmonary complications in patients at risk of complications who are receiving mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery. Methods In this randomised controlled trial at 30 centres in Europe and North and South America, we recruited 900 patients at risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were planned for open abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia and ventilation at tidal volumes of 8 mL/kg. We randomly allocated patients to either a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure (12 cm H2O) with recruitment manoeuvres (higher PEEP group) or a low level of pressure (≤2 cm H2O) without recruitment manoeuvres (lower PEEP group). We used a centralised computer- generated randomisation system. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. Primary endpoint was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications by postoperative day 5. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The study is registered at Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN70332574. Findings From February, 2011, to January, 2013, 447 patients were randomly allocated to the higher PEEP group and 453 to the lower PEEP group. Six patients were excluded from the analysis, four because they withdrew consent and two for violation of inclusion criteria. Median levels of positive end-expiratory pressure were 12 cm H2O (IQR 12–12) in the higher PEEP group and 2 cm H2O (0–2) in the lower PEEP group. Postoperative pulmonary complications were reported in 174 (40%) of 445 patients in the higher PEEP group versus 172 (39%) of 449 patients in the lower PEEP group (relative risk 1·01; 95% CI 0·86–1·20; p=0·86). Compared with patients in the lower PEEP group, those in the higher PEEP group developed intraoperative hypotension and needed more vasoactive drugs. Interpretation A strategy with a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment manoeuvres during open abdominal surgery does not protect against postoperative pulmonary complications. An intraoperative protective ventilation strategy should include a low tidal volume and low positive end-expiratory pressure, without recruitment manoeuvres. Funding Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam, Netherlands), European Society of Anaesthesiology.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery
Futier, E., Constantin, J.-M., Paugam-Burtz, C., Pascal, J., Eurin, M., Neuschwander, A., Marret, E., Beaussier, M., Gutton, C., Lefrant, J.-Y., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1301082 · Cited by 1,434
Serpa Neto, A., Cardoso, S. O., Manetta, J. A., Pereira, V. G. M., Espósito, D. C., Pasqualucci, M. D. O. P., Damasceno, M. C. T., & Schultz, M. J. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.13730 · Cited by 843
Self-citation
Cited by
Postoperative pulmonary complications
Miskovic, A., & Lumb, A. B. (2017) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aex002 · Cited by 1,123
Fernandez-Bustamante, A., Frendl, G., Sprung, J., Kor, D. J., Subramaniam, B., Martinez Ruiz, R., Lee, J.-W., Henderson, W. G., Moss, A., Mehdiratta, N., et al. (2017) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4065 · Cited by 653
Kirmeier, E., Eriksson, L. I., Lewald, H., Jonsson Fagerlund, M., Hoeft, A., Hollmann, M., Meistelman, C., Hunter, J. M., Ulm, K., Blobner, M., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30294-7 · Cited by 372
Boden, I., Skinner, E. H., Browning, L., Reeve, J., Anderson, L., Hill, C., Robertson, I. K., Story, D., & Denehy, L. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j5916 · Cited by 325
Neto, A. S., da Costa, L. G. V., Hemmes, S. N. T., Canet, J., Hedenstierna, G., Jaber, S., Hiesmayr, M., Hollmann, M. W., Mills, G. H., Vidal Melo, M. F., et al. (2018) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000845 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-08
- Volume
- 384
- Issue
- 9942
- Pages
- 495-503
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W81990000
- Cited by
- 698
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 49.19
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60416-5
- The paper
- High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. (2014). The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60416-5
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.