Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient-ventilator interaction and sleep in mechanically ventilated patients: Pressure support versus proportional assist ventilation*

Bosma, Karen, Ferreyra, Gabriela, Ambrogio, Cristina, Pasero, Daniela, Mirabella, Lucia, Braghiroli, Alberto, Appendini, Lorenzo, Mascia, Luciana, Ranieri, V Marco·2007·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To understand the role of patient-ventilator asynchrony in the etiology of sleep disruption and determine whether optimizing patient-ventilator interactions by using proportional assist ventilation improves sleep. DESIGN: Randomized crossover clinical trial. SETTING: A tertiary university medical-surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Thirteen patients during weaning from mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive pressure support ventilation or proportional assist ventilation on the first night and then crossed over to the alternative mode for the second night. Polysomnography and measurement of light, noise, esophageal pressure, airway pressure, and flow were performed from 10 pm to 8 am. Ventilator settings (pressure level during pressure support ventilation and resistive and elastic proportionality factors during proportional assist ventilation) were set to obtain a 50% reduction of the inspiratory work (pressure time product per minute) performed during a spontaneous breathing trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Arousals per hour of sleep time during pressure support ventilation were 16 (range 2-74) and 9 (range 1-41) during proportional assist ventilation (p = .02). Overall sleep quality was significantly improved on proportional assist ventilation (p < .05) due to the combined effect of fewer arousals per hour, fewer awakenings per hour (3.5 [0-24] vs. 5.5 [1-24]), and greater rapid eye movement (9% [0-31] vs. 4% [0-23]), and slow wave (3% [0-16] vs. 1% [0-10]) sleep. Tidal volume and minute ventilation were lower on proportional assist ventilation, allowing for a greater increase in Paco2 during the night. Patient-ventilator asynchronies per hour were lower with proportional assist ventilation than with pressure support ventilation (24 +/- 15 vs. 53 +/- 59; p = .02) and correlated with the number of arousals per hour (R = .65, p = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient ventilator discordance causes sleep disruption. Proportional assist ventilation seems more efficacious than pressure support ventilation in matching ventilatory requirements with ventilator assistance, therefore resulting in fewer patient-ventilator asynchronies and better quality of sleep.

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 · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000260055.64235.7c

Cites

27 of 27 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

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Bosma, K., Ferreyra, G., Ambrogio, C., Pasero, D., Mirabella, L., Braghiroli, A., Appendini, L., Mascia, L., & Ranieri, V. M.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2007-04
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
1048-1054
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088951207
Cited by
300
References
27
FWCI
14.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Patient-ventilator interaction and sleep in mechanically ventilated patients: Pressure support versus proportional assist ventilation*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000260055.64235.7c
The paper
Bosma, K., Ferreyra, G., Ambrogio, C., Pasero, D., Mirabella, L., Braghiroli, A., Appendini, L., Mascia, L., & Ranieri, V. M. (2007). Patient-ventilator interaction and sleep in mechanically ventilated patients: Pressure support versus proportional assist ventilation*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000260055.64235.7c

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.